PPT Working Paper No. 4

Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism:NACOBTA the Namibian case study

Nepeti Nicanor

April 2001

Preface

This case study was written as a contribution to a project on ‘pro-poor tourism strategies.’ The pro-poor tourism projectis collaborative research involving the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the International Institute forEnvironment and Development (IIED), the Centre for Responsible Tourism at the University of Greenwich (CRT),together with in-country case study collaborators. It is funded by the Economic and Social Research Unit (ESCOR) ofthe UK Department for International Development (DFID).

The project reviewed the experience of pro-poor tourism strategies based on six commissioned case studies. Thesestudies used a common methodology developed within this project. The case study work was undertaken mainlybetween September and December 2000. Findings have been synthesised into a research report and a policy briefing,while the 6 case studies are all available as Working Papers. The outputs of the project are:

Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism work for the poor. Pro-poor Tourism Report No 1. (60pp) by CarolineAshley, Dilys Roe and Harold Goodwin, April 2001.

Pro-poor tourism: Expanding opportunities for the poor. PPT Policy Briefing No 1. (4pp). By Caroline Ashley,Harold Goodwin and Dilys Roe, April 2001.

Pro poor Tourism Working Papers:

No 1 Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism, Wilderness Safaris South Africa: Rocktail Bay and Ndumu Lodge.Clive Poultney and Anna Spenceley

No 2 Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism. Case studies of Makuleke and Manyeleti tourism initiatives: SouthAfrica. Karin Mahony and Jurgens Van Zyl

No 3 Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism. Case study of pro-poor tourism and SNV in Humla District, WestNepal. Naomi M. Saville

No 4. Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism: NACOBTA the Namibian case study. Nepeti NicanorNo 5. UCOTA – The Uganda Community Tourism Association: a comparison with NACOBTA. Elissa Williams,

Alison White and Anna SpenceleyNo 6. Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism. Tropic Ecological Adventures – Ecuador. Scott Braman and

Fundación Acción AmazoniaNo 7. Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism: a case study of the St. Lucia Heritage Tourism Programme. Yves

RenardNo 8 Pro-poor tourism initiatives in developing countries: analysis of secondary case studies. Xavier Cattarinich.

All of the reports are available on our website at:

http://www.propoortourism.org.uk.

© CRT, IIED and ODI, 2001

Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from this working paper, but as copyright holdersCRT, IIED and ODI request due acknowledgement.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the UK Department for International Development (DFID) in fundingthis work. DFID supports policies, programmes and projects to promote international development. It provided fundsfor this study as part of that objective, but the views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors alone.

The study was conducted under the auspices of the CRT, IIED and ODI, with editing and advisory inputs from CarolineAshley (ODI) and Maxi Louis, Executive Director of NACOBTA.

The author

Nepeti Nicanor is an independent consultant. She may be contacted at

P O Box 25601WindhoekNAMIBIA

Tel + 264 61 2300 303Email: nepetrob@iafrica.com.na

NACOBTA’s web site address is www.nacobta.com.na

Acronyms

CAN Community-based Natural Resource Management Association of NamibiaCBRNM Community-based natural resource managementCBT Community-based tourismCBTE Community-based Tourism EnterpriseDFID Department for International DevelopmentEU European UnionFENATA Federation of Namibian Tourism AssociationsIRDNC Integrated Rural Development & Nature Conservation

LIFE Living in a Finite EnvironmentMC Management CommitteeMET Ministry of Environment and TourismNACOBTA Namibia Community-based Tourism AssociationNANGOF Namibia NGO Forum

NGO Non-governmental organisationPPT Pro poor tourismPTO Permission to occupyRISE Rural Institute for Social EmpowermentSCL Standard Consumption LevelSIDA Swedish Agency for International DevelopmentSME Small and medium enterprisesSWAPO South West African People’s OrganisationUCOTA The Uganda Community Tourism AssociationUSAID United States AidWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

Contents

1. Overview 11.1 Key geographical, cultural and historical characteristics 11.2 Tourists and tourism segments 11.3 Background on NACOBTA 2

2. Pro Poor Focus 52.1 Pro-poor strategies 52.2 Overview of strategies 132.3 Specific action to involve poor people in tourism 14

3. Results and Impacts 153.1 Progress and challenges 153.2 Relevance to poverty reduction 243.3 Case studies 25

3.3a Spitzkopppe CBTE 253.3b Penduka 273.3c Face to Face 283.3d Nyae Nyae Conservancy 303.3e Torra Bay CBTE 31

3.4 Impact of CBTEs on the poor 323.5 Broader contributions to poverty alleviation 333.6 Anticipated impacts 34

4. Review and Lessons 364.1 Reflections on this PPT initiative 364.2 Reflections on the PPT research 39

References 41

Appendices1. Methodology 442. Actions to address barriers to participation of the poor in tourism 453. Impacts on livelihoods of the poor 474. Financial data 52

Boxes and tablesBox 1 NACOBTA membership criteria 5Box 2 Who are the poor? 8

Table 1 Number of visitors using accommodation and facilities and number of foreignvisitors to Namibia

2

Table 2 Registered conservancies 10Table 3 Emerging conservancies 10Table 4 NACOBTA operational budget 2000-2005 20Table 5 Types of poor benefiting from NACOBTA member enterprises 24Table 6 Financial earnings of the poor, Spitzkoppe 26Table 7 Financial earnings of the poor, Penduka 28Table 8 Financial earnings of the poor, Face to Face 30Table 9 Financial earnings of the poor, Nyae Nyae Conservancy 31Table 10 Financial earnings of the poor, Torra Bay 31Table 11 NACOBTA projected indicators 35

1

1. Overview

The focus of this study is the Namibian Community-based Tourism Association (NACOBTA). It isa membership-based association of community-based tourism enterprises (CBTEs) found inrelatively poor communities, which aims to incorporate pro-poor tourism in the mainstream touristindustry. The association provides support to its members by way of grants, loans, marketing,training and organisational development, and also represents its members’ interests in policydevelopment at the national level and in negotiations with the mainstream tourist industry.

The case study aims to assess and document NACOBTA’s pro-poor tourism strategies, and thechallenges and progress it has faced in implementing these strategies.

1.1 Key geographical, cultural and historical characteristics

Namibia lies on the west coast of southern Africa, sharing its borders with Angola, Botswana, SouthAfrica, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Its land area is 824,269km2, with a population estimated to bearound 1.7 million. It was colonised by Germany in 1884, before passing over to British and SouthAfrican rule. Namibia gained independence in 1990, following a period of more than thirty years ofarmed struggle by the black Namibians under the South-West African People’s Organisation(SWAPO).

There are thirteen officially recognised languages in Namibia, reflecting the diversity of culture andlanguage in Namibia, although English has been the official language since Independence. TheNamibian landscape is home to one of the oldest deserts in the world, the Namib, with its sanddunes, gravel plains, and rocky hills as well as the Kalahari Desert. There are also mountain ranges,fossilised forests, grass and woodland savannah, underground lakes, swamps and extinct volcanoes.There is a vast range of wildlife including black and white rhinos, cheetahs (highest population inAfrica), giraffes, oryx, lions, elephants, ostriches, leopards, antelopes, springboks, hippos,crocodiles and the side-winding snakes of the Namib Desert.

During German colonial rule blacks in the central and southern regions were removed from theirland and the land was given to the white settlers. This has resulted in 4,200 (mostly white) farmersowning and occupying 44% of the land as commercial farms, which alone consume 36% of thewater resources. Communal land makes up 41%, and this is the land which 73% of Namibians liveoff today through subsistence farming. Around 15% of the country is classified as National Parks.

Namibia has a wealth of cultural and historical features and events such as rock paintings, culturalmuseums, German architecture, monuments, cultural villages, traditional celebrations andcommemorations provide a rich combination of the old and the modern.

1.2 Tourists and tourism segments

Namibia is a well-established tourist destination attracting local, regional and international visitors.The majority of regional tourists are South Africans who in 1998 comprised 35.5% of the totalnumber of visitors to Namibia. Other regional tourists come from Botswana, Zimbabwe andZambia. German tourists provided the largest number of international visitors (10% of total number

2

of visitors in 1998), followed by visitors from the UK, North America, France, Italy andScandinavia.

The tourist sectors that are well-developed are the coastal, wilderness, mass-market, luxury,adventure, back-packers and self-driving segments. The rural and urban tourism sections are stillunder-developed, but this could change dramatically with the development of conservancies1 andenterprises like Face to Face.

The use of accommodation facilities has decreased over the past three years, although the number ofvisitors has risen (mainly due to Angolans, who rarely use the tourist facilities). This is probably dueto unrest in the Caprivi region which began in August 1998.

Table 1 Number of visitors using accommodation facilities and number of foreign visitorsto Namibia

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Accommodation 335,903 476,316 561,592 675,046 629,041 497,945

Arrivals - - - 610,349 614,368 693,777

Source: Accommodation and Visitors’ Statistics by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) (19??)

1.3 Background on NACOBTA

NACOBTA was established in 1995 and operates at both micro and macro levels. At the microlevel it works with individual enterprises by providing advice, loans, training and promotionalservices, and also acts as a network and a ‘voice’ for CBTE initiatives At the macro level,NACOBTA has been active in lobbying and assisting the government develop its tourism policy. Ithas also been working with the State to ensure that communities who apply to be demarcated asconservancies also get permission to own the land and other resources besides wildlife. In addition,NACOBTA liaises with private operators to ensure that CBTEs are integrated into mainstreamtourism.

1.3.1 Membership

There were 45 members of NACOBTA at the end of 2000 and membership is open to various kindsof initiatives such as those listed below.

$ Campsites and lodges run by communities $ Art and craft centres

$ Community guides and trackers $ Community tour operators

$ Traditional villages $ Cultural groups

$ Local museums $ Community car hire operators

$ Community canoe operators $ Conservancies

$ Wildlife councils

Source: NACOBTA Constitution (19??)

1 A conservancy is a registered body of local residents to which the Government devolves conditional rights to use wildlife, so long as it is done sustainably

3

1.3.2 Target market

The enterprises that are members of NACOBTA cater for a wide-range of tourists. A few meet theneeds of up-market tourists, while many provide services more appropriate for independent, self-drive tourists. Currently, the biggest market is for the budget backpacker, followed by those in theadventure and wilderness segments of the tourist industry.

1.3.3 Key actors

Management and StaffThe Association has a secretariat in the capital city, Windhoek, which is staffed by a programmemanager, a training coordinator, three business advisors and an administrator/accountant. Currently,there is a management support person seconded by a donor to assist with skills development of theprogramme manager and the business advisors.

NACOBTA is run by a management committee of ten, consisting of seven elected members andthree non-voting Committee members – the programme manager and two additional members fromthe private sector, one with expertise in tourism and the other in small enterprise development.There are two additional members who are nominated by the programme manager and endorsed byall seven voting members. The elected members serve office for two years, while the additionalmembers serve for one year. The highest decision-making body is the Annual General Meetingwhere members come together.

DonorsDonors play a crucial role in the activities of NACOBTA as most of the Association’s activities aredonor funded. Only a small amount of its income is self-generated through training and consultancyactivities. NACOBTA has received N$4.6 million from donors over the past five years. NACOBTAhas received N$4.6 million from donors over the past five years. The two main sources of fundinghave been from the Swedish Development Agency (SIDA) and the Living in a Finite Environment(LIFE) programme. Additional funding has also been received from the UK Department forInternational Development (DFID) and the European Union (EU).

Many of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) currently involved in community-basedtourism (CBT), have been lobbied by donors to become involved in tourism and community-basednatural resource management (CBNRM). USAID, WWF and other donors funding the LIFEinitiative have been lobbying for local NGOs to take over when the programme comes to a close,and have also been influential in the establishment of the Community-based Natural ResourceManagement Association of Namibia (CAN) – the CBNRM NGO Association in Namibia. Many ofthe tasks that NACOBTA has taken up – such as the tourism development of the Nyae Nyaeconservancy – are through involvement with LIFE, which has also funded NACOBTA. LIFE hasalso been influential in lobbying other donors to commit funds to natural resource managementissues, as well as CBTE development.

4

Other stakeholdersNACOBTA works in close partnership with other stakeholders involved in tourism, pro-poortourism (PPT), training, CBNRM, policy formulation and advocacy. Currently the private sector isthe most influential in tourism development, followed by NGOs who work mainly in naturalresource management and community-based tourism projects, while the government plays a veryerratic role.

The private sector is well organised and spearheaded by the Federation of Namibian TourismAssociations (FENATA), an umbrella organisation consisting of private sector organisations, thegovernment and NGOs. Apart from private companies, organisations influential in tourismdevelopment in Namibia are:

$ Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) $ Air Namibia (the National Airline)

$ Association of Namibian Travel Agents (ANTA) $ Car Rental Association of Namibia (CARAN)

$ Hospitality Association of Namibia(HAN) $ Namibia Professional Hunters Association (NAPHA)

$ Tour and Safari Association of Namibia (TASA) $ Tourist Related Namibian Businesses Association(TRENABA)

$ FENATA $ NACOBTA

$ Life Programme $ Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF)

$ Rural Institute for Social Empowerment (RISE) $ Namibia NGO Forum (NANGOF)

$ Legal Assistance Centre (LAC) $ CAN

$ Rössing Foundation $ Namibia Development Trust

$ Nyae Nyae Development Foundation (NNDF) $ Integrated Rural Development & Nature Conservation(IRDNC)

5

2. Pro-poor Focus

NACOBTA can be regarded as a ‘trade association’, representing the poorest sections of the touristindustry. Most of its members are based in communal land areas where the majority of people arepoor (income of less than U$1 per day) and rely on subsistence farming. Communal lands also havethe highest unemployment rates, lowest income and are the least developed areas in the country.

One of the main objectives of NACOBTA is to raise the income and employment levels of theseareas through tourism, in order to improve the living standards of people in communal areas. It triesto achieve this objective through a pro-poor strategy that includes:

$ the development of CBT as a niche;$ the integration of CBTEs into the mainstream tourism industry by involving the private sector;$ working towards the development and implementation of policies conducive to pro-poor and

environmentally sound CBT, and$ the establishment of NACOBTA as an institution.

Its membership criteria also emphasise support and benefits for the poor, the disadvantaged and thecommunity (Box 1).

Box 1 NACOBTA membership criteria

$ The initiative must significantly benefit disadvantaged communities

$ The members or individuals must have limited access to financial resources and skills necessary todevelop their enterprises

$ The initiative must be owned and operated by a community, community–based organisation or by aresident individual who is a member of the local community; this excludes privately controlledenterprises

$ There should be clear evidence of a community benefit fund or other form of community benefitcoming from the initiative

• The proposed initiative should be viable

Source: Adapted from NACOBTA Constitution (19??)

The tourism focus of NACOBTA is different from conventional tourism because the communitiesor residents own the enterprises and are directly involved in running them. The benefits from theinitiatives go to the community residents as community funds, wages or income to casual labourersand informal sector traders. Unlike conventional tourism, CBT does not aim to expand the size oftourism, but instead aims to carve a niche in the existing tourism market to distribute the benefitsmore widely.

2.1 Pro-poor strategies

As mentioned earlier, NACOBTA takes a multi-faceted approach to PPT because the environmentnecessary for it to succeed is multi-dimensional and therefore requires a multi-pronged approach.NACOBTA’s approach involves four main strategies:.

6

1. Micro-level – assisting individual CBTEs get off the ground and succeed.2. Private sector level – integration of CBT into mainstream tourism industry3. Macro-level – lobbying and advocating for a policy and planning framework that is PPT4. Institutional level – institutional development of NACOBTA as a representative body of

CBTEs.

2.1.1 Activities of NACOBTA at micro-level

Offering assistance to its members to enable them to get off the ground has been NACOBTA’s mostsuccessful strategy to date. The activities include training, the provision of grants, productdevelopment, marketing and business advice.

• TrainingNACOBTA offers training to its members and occasionally to its partners on request e.g.Botswana. The courses offered in 1999 and 2000 were: Local Tour Guide Course, BasicIntroduction to Tourism and CBT, Tourism Awareness Course, Business Skills Training, andDeveloping a CBTE. A total of 237 and 182 people were trained in 1999 and 2000 respectively.

• Small grantsThe Association seeks funding to provide small grants to CBTEs to improve facilities, as mosthave difficulties accessing loans from financial institutions because they are poor and havenothing to serve as collateral. Grants offered so far have been used to finance the furnishing andfitting of bungalows; upgrading bars, showers and toilets, and the development of campsites andother infrastructure such as reception buildings and entrance gates. Six (total of N$112,000) andfive (total of N$50,000) grants were granted during 1999 and 2000 respectively. NACOBTAestimates it will give grants to the value of N$1.5 million by the end of 2005. Of this,N$1million is expected to be disbursed in the next three years (2001- 2003). These small grantswill help raise CBTE facilities to a basic minimum standard and so encourage the private sectorto use them.

NACOBTA enters into agreements with the CBTEs they support. These address how they aregoing to contribute to the community development fund. In addition to small grants, NACOBTAassists CBTEs in raising funds from donors and other organisations.

• Improvement and development of productIn addition to grants, NACOBTA staff work directly with CBTEs helping them to improve theirproducts (e.g. accommodation and quality of service). They also advise how CBTEs can addvalue to their product by, for example, offering other services such as cultural performances,identifying new tour routes etc.

NACOBTA provides CBTEs with basic support packages, consisting of record keeping andfinancial management stationery, a visitor’s book, a date stamp, sign board and a calculator.NACOBTA staff also provide on-site training on how to use and implement this package.

• On-site business adviceNACOBTA has three business advisors who provide on-site assistance to member CBTEs. Thisincludes training; developing management and organisational structures and tools; developingmission and vision statements; developing marketing strategies; setting-up financial, monitoringand evaluation systems; setting-up booking systems; drafting constitutions; preparing funding

7

proposals; assisting in planning; assisting in the application for concessions; overseeing thedevelopment of infrastructure; setting-up a performance indicator database system etc.

• Development of business plansThe business advisors work together with individual CBTEs to develop and review theircomprehensive business plans. This involves consultation with the private sector and researchon any proposed new products. These business plans are then used as management tools by theCBTE management.

• MarketingThe marketing activities of NACOBTA include the production and distribution of a bi-monthlynewsletter, a brochure and a CBTE information booklet highlighting all operating memberenterprises and exhibitions at national, regional and international trade fairs and expositions.They occupy a permanent stand at the Namibia Craft Centre, displaying t-shirts advertisingparticular CBTEs and copies of advertisements and editorials placed in newspapers, travel andairline magazines. NACOBTA also offers advice and information on setting-up web sites,attending meetings with tourism organisations like FENATA, as well as providing sign-boardsand guidance on the development of brochures for CBTE members. Other services providedinclude the marketing of CBTEs for inclusion in tour operators’ brochures, and the distributionof brochures and newsletters through Namibian Tourism offices, both nationally andinternationally.

2.1.2 Integration of CBT into the mainstream tourism industry

Integrating the CBT into the mainstream tourism industry is one of NACOBTA’s main strategies,and has recently met with some success. The Association has been involved in various activities tohelp combat scepticism in the private sector. These include:

• Inclusion of two private sector members in the management committee of NACOBTA• Joining the Federation of Namibian Tourism Associations as a member• Regular attendance of FENATA and TASA meetings by NACOBTA to meet, and be seen by,

the private sector• Organisation and facilitation of a workshop with tour operators in November 1999 to discuss

potential partnerships with CBTEs and requirements by private sector• Distribution of information about CBTEs to private sector• Training of CBTE staff and members to reach the standard expected by the private sector• Facilitation and mediation of joint-venture agreements between CBTEs and private businesses• Development of investment portfolios for CBTEs• Provision of joint venture training for members• Doing all the preparatory work with CBTEs such as plans, management structures, negotiation

skills, involvement and agreement of all stakeholders in the community before bringing inpotential investors/joint venture partners to shorten the procedure for time-pressed privatesector

• Initiating investment/joint venture discussion with private sector• Arrangement of site visits for potential investors• Participation in trade fairs and expositions• Promotion and publicity in media about NACOBTA and CBTEs• Production of up-dates catalogue/brochure of CBTEs• Setting-up a website

8

• Setting-up a national booking and information system• Up-grading CBTE facilities to meet required private sector standards by giving technical

support and grants• Using private sector in product development and tourism planning on consultancy basis

2.1.3 Macro level strategy and activities

The Association represents, lobbies and liaises with the government to ensure that the interests andideas of CBTEs are met and incorporated into the policy-making, planning, implementation,evaluation and monitoring processes of government.

(i) Development objectivesThe National policy objectives as stated in the First National Development Plan (Volume 1,199??, pp.) are:

• ‘to diversify, expand and restructure the economy so as to enhance sustainable economicdevelopment and growth’;

• ‘to create more employment opportunities so as to alleviate poverty and improve the incomedistribution and living standards of the people’;

• ‘to reduce existing glaring economic and regional imbalances prevalent in the country’;• ‘to promote and support the development of small scale enterprises and informal sector

economic activities so as to reduce income inequalities a and alleviate poverty’;• ‘to support and encourage the participation of women and youth in the country’s economic

activities’

(ii) Pro-poor approachesThe government's pro-poor activities, policies and strategies to date include:

• The involvement of the poor in road construction to create employment, for example, in thenorthern regions

• The SME policy that assists to make credit facilities and loans available to previouslydisadvantaged groups

• The establishment of the export processing zones at Walvis Bay on the coast and Oshikangoin the north which have proven unsuccessful

Box 2 Who are the poor?

Poor in the local context means those who spent 80% of theirincome or more on food. According to the Namibia FoodSecurity and Nutrition Assessment Report of 1995, poorhouseholds are those who have an income of between N$248.34and N$496.69 per year and they make up 30% of the totalpopulation. The very poor are those with an annual income ofless than N$248.34 per year and make up 25% of thepopulation. The better-off are those with an income of morethan N$496.69 per year and make up 45% of the population. Ifthese figures are converted to U$ the bottom of the better-offgroup will have $0.17 per day

9

• The provision of drought resistant seeds and new technology to subsistence farmers incommunal areas

• Resettlement programme for the landless poor• Inclusion of benefits for the poor as a requirement in tender applications for fishing quotas• The establishment of the Build Together programme which gives subsidised loans to poor

people to build houses and has proven to be reasonably successful by providing homes for3,379 families in all 13 regions over three years. The loan repayment rate by 1994 was 54%.

• The provision of food to the poor during drought periods through the Food Aid and FoodFor Work programmes

• The implementation of national-wide adult literacy programmes to increase literacy level to80% by 2000

• The Communal Land Bill which is intended to allow communal farmers to own land on atenure system

• Provision of incubator units with subsidised rents, joint facilities, business managementassistance to small scale enterprises for a limited period

• Provision of work sites and market places for small scale and informal sector traders• The Affirmative Action Policy that favours the previously disadvantaged in employment• The progressive extension of health care services to reach all communities, with special

attention to the disadvantaged and isolated communities in rural areas

(iii) Tourism policiesTourism is one of the fastest growing industries in Namibia and the government regards it asone of the means of achieving the objectives of the national plan above. There is no nationaltourism policy as yet, but the government has developed CBT and conservancy policydocuments which outline its intention to promote and support CBT and the establishment ofconservancies in communal areas. Since Independence, government tourism policy has beenused to encourage private sector investment and the international tourism market, but thishas been constrained by a lack of capacity in government. Practical change has focused onprivatising the resorts inside National Parks and establishing a Namibian Tourism Board.

(iv) Pro-poor policy issues in tourismPolicies specific to tourism include the MET Policy Document Circular No. 20 of 1995 onCommunity-Based Tourism Development and the Nature Conservation Amendment Act,1996 (Act 5 of 1996) which makes provision for community members to establishconservancies. Commercial farmers have been able to form conservancies since 1975, butnot communities in communal land areas. The introduction of this policy has led to theregistration of 16 communal conservancies with another 10 in the emerging stages.

The Nature Conservation Amendment Act has a pro-poor component, although its main aimis to realise the government’s objective of conserving natural resources and managing themsustainably. It realises that conservation cannot take place without the involvement of thepeople, and that if communities are to become involved there must be some incentive.Nevertheless, it has been vital in laying the foundations for the development of communitytourism. Most conservancies are developing tourism plans as a form of non-consumptive useof wildlife and as a means for income generation. Thus conservancy development is anengine for community tourism.

10

Table 2 Registered conservancies

1. Nyae Nyae 5. Salambala 9. Torra 13. Khoadi Hôas

2. Uibasen 6. Doro!nawas 10. Kwandu 14. Mayuni

3. Wuparo 7. Marienfluss 11. Purros 15. Sesfontein

4. Warmquelle 8. Ehirovipuka 12. Uibasen Twyfelfontein 16. Tsiseb

Source: Directorate of Tourism (2000)

Table 3 Emerging conservancies

1. Orupembe 6. Omatendeka

2. Uukwaluudhi 7. //Hûab

3. Anichab Braunfels 8. Daures

4. Mutc’ku-Bwabwata 9. Mashi

5. Impalila 10. Otjikavare

Source: Directorate of Tourism (2000)

(v) Community tourism policyThe MET circular No. 20 of 1995 on Community-Based Tourism Development is pro-poorand states that it is the policy of the MET to:

• actively open up opportunities for rural communities, local people and the informal sector toincrease their involvement in the tourism industry, particularly in tourism planning and therunning of enterprises;

• ensure that rural communities, local people and the informal sector have greater access to thebenefits from tourism on their land by creating appropriate legal mechanisms andestablishing appropriate incentives;

• ensure that development of tourism on communal land takes place in areas and in formsacceptable to local people;

• encourage the formal tourism sector to co-operate and work with the informal sector and torecognise that, as well as being in the interest of the tourism industry long-term, this is asocial responsibility and contribution to Namibia’s national development objectives ofimproved equity, poverty alleviation, and sustainable growth;

• ensure that tourism development within Namibia is environmentally sustainable.

However, this CBT policy has never been translated into legislation. This raises generalconcerns for CBT and perpetuates a specific problem concerning communities’ lack ofrights over tourism concessions. Another problem area with regard to this policy, is the lackof understanding and knowledge about the policy amongst MET staff, resulting in a lack ofsupport or poor/incorrect information to communities and organisations such as NACOBTA.This negates all the promises made by the government as to what they will do to ensure theimplementation of this policy.

(vi) Tourism concession rightsThe pre-Independence approach to tourism development on communal land was for thegovernment to allocate tourism ‘concessions’ (large areas of land for lodge development andgame viewing) to private investors. The post-Independence policies on communal

11

conservancies and community tourism state that these concessionary rights to tourism shouldgo to conservancies. However, this has not been translated into legislation because it did notfall within the legal scope of the 1996 amendment (which focuses on the consumptive use ofwildlife hunting). Meanwhile, the planned Tourism Act to reform policy on concessionsand general tourism planning has remained in draft for several years. In some cases such asthe Torra Conservancy, conservancies have de facto control over tourism as it would beunrealistic to develop in their area without their co-operation. But other conservancies havebeen established in areas where tourism or hunting concessions have already been granted toother individuals outside the community before the establishment of the conservancy. Theyhave also since been renewed without consulting the conservancy, due to negligence or lackof government commitment to get its house in order. In these cases, private operatorscontinue to control tourism within the area, paying the government and not the communityfor the right to do so.

(vii) Lack of tourism and communal land legislationDespite the strong pro-poor elements of some specific policies, pro-poor developments areconstrained by the general uncertainty over land use and tourism development in communalareas. This is caused by the on-going failure to finalise and pass an umbrella Tourism andLand Act.

The Communal Land Bill which proposes to grant land tenure to conservancies has still notbeen finalised or passed. In order to integrate CBT into the tourism industry there is a needfor an injection of capital by the private sector. However, very few investors want to investin a community which has no land tenure or rights over resources such as water, fauna andother landscape features.

(viii) Lack of capacityThe Directorate of Tourism – responsible for the implementation of most of the policiesmentioned above – has only two staff members including the Director to deal with theexpanding level of needs created by the implementation of the policy on conservancies andCBTEs. The MET lacks the capacity and skills to deal with many of the promises made inits policy documents and with problems experienced by communities in relation tocommunity-based tourism and tourism in general, such as boundary disputes, capacitybuilding, marketing and speedy and effective policy formulation.

One could say that except for the CBT policy, many of the policies in place are not explicitlypro-poor but may benefit the poor because they open up opportunities for the poor.However, the lack of co-ordination within and between government ministries and theabsence of a tourism policy hinders the development of community–based tourism andtourism as a whole.

(ix) NACOBTA activities at macro levelAs stated in the policy context outlined above, NACOBTA’s strategy is to influence, assist,lobby and work with those responsible for legislating and implementing policies and plans atthe macro-level. Sometimes NACOBTA has to highlight the difficulties experienced on theground to the decision-makers at the macro-level. The following are specific activities ofNACOBTA at the macro-level.

a) Development of regional tourism development plansNACOBTA and other partners are involved in the development of regional tourism masterplans, which look at the tourism potential in particular regions of the country. The master

12

plans serve as frameworks for tourism development in those regions. The Northwest Regionand the North Central Region Tourism Master Plans have been finalised and the SouthernRegion Tourism Master Plan is under development. The intention is for NACOBTA to usethese master plans to develop conservancy tourism option plans, starting with the NorthwestRegion. These plans will assist conservancies to identify and develop tourism products withthe best potential for their particular conservancies. NACOBTA is also responsible for co-ordinating the fundraising for these conservancy plans.

b) Policy developmentNACOBTA is involved in the drafting of, as well as lobbying and advocating for, thedevelopment, improvement and implementation of government policies such as theCommunal Land Bill that advocates the granting of land tenure to community members.Other areas of policy which they have been directly involved with include Tourism Policy,PTO procedures, Conservancy application procedures, granting hunting leases to CBTEs andthe granting of rights over natural resources to communities. Here are some of the specificinterventions which NACOBTA have undertaken at policy level:

$ Lobbying for the conservancies to be granted land tenure in the Communal Land Bill$ Drafting and presenting the NANGOF Draft Communal Land Bill to the Parliamentary

Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management$ Drafting and presenting the NANGOF Draft Communal Land Bill to the Parliamentary

Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management$ Lobbying for clarity and procedures on how the power of the proposed Land Boards

relates to the power of conservancies$ Advocating that the MET stop granting concessions to private sector individuals while

conservancies are being established$ Advocating the same trophy hunting quota award system and procedures for both the

freehold and conservancies$ Lobbying for the MET to get involved in resolving boundary conflicts between

emerging conservancies$ Participating in discussions and drafting of recommendations on the draft Tourism

Policy, particularly those affecting CBT and conservancies$ Advocating that tourism concessions be granted automatically to conservancies$ Promoting the CBT policy amongst communities and advocating for its speedy

implementation$ Giving input to the review of the Parks and Neighbours Policy$ Being involved in the Forestry Policy and Legislation Review

2.1.4 The institutional strategy

The first three strategies could not be implemented without the establishment of NACOBTA as aninstitution. Without NACOBTA, CBTE’s would not have a united voice to air their complaints noraccess to opportunities for skills development, technical support and funds. It is important to havean authoritative voice to be able to intervene at the macro-level, and the development ofNACOBTA and its membership has allowed it to make useful and practical interventions. Donorsare also more keen to channel funds through an institution rather than to an individual, and so donorfunding to NACOBTA has increased over the years.

13

The link with the private sector has also been made easier by having NACOBTA as a central pointof contact, making negotiations between individual CBTEs and private sector investors smootherand less time-consuming. Through NACOBTA, individual CBTEs have been able to learn from andsupport each other and their partners. It has also brought together members who would otherwise beisolated and have no bargaining power when dealing with the government, the private sector, NGOsand donors. In its role as a strong united voice and focal point of CBTEs, NACOBTA has:

$ Established itself as the only organisation focusing on CBTE development$ Taken up active membership of various bodies involved in CBTE, tourism, CBNRM such as

FENATA, Board Member of the Game Trust Fund, Tourism Advisory Committee, Omilunga(North Central) Tourism Forum, LIFE Steering Committee, Game Trust Fund, NorthwestTourism Steering Committee, CAN – the CBRNM Association in Namibia.

$ Increased membership to 45$ Raised funds to maintain activities of Association$ Established and maintained an office for the Association$ Established links and partnerships with local and international organisations working on

related issues

2.2 Overview of strategies

Although the above are the four main strategies used by NACOBTA, the organisation has usedadditional ones to a lesser extent. These other strategies are described below.

(i) Expansion of business opportunities for the poorNACOBTA offers training, marketing, grants and business advice to members to make theirenterprises more viable. The Association has also assisted in expanding the CBTE market byencouraging the private sector to use their facilities and services. The setting-up of a websiteand a booking system is part of NACOBTA’s strategy to assist CBTEs and expand themarket within the current tourism market. The production of brochures, t-shirts, newslettersand advertisements are also part of the expansion of business opportunities for the poor.

(ii) Expansion of employment opportunities for the poorIn 2000, NACOBTA members provided full-time employment to 163 and 38 part-timeemployment to unemployed poor people.

(iii) Building a supportive policy and planning frameworkNACOBTA has been lobbying and advocating for communities to get speedy access to, anduse of, land and natural resources through land tenure, conservancies, concessions, PTOs. Ithas also been working with the State on community-based tourism, Land Tenure, CommunalLand Bill, Parks and Neighbours legislation to ensure that the poor benefit and are notnegatively affected by these policies. One of the areas that NACOBTA and partners havebeen lobbying the government for is the training of MET staff to ensure they have a clearunderstanding of these policies, to enable them to assist the communities appropriately.

(iv) Developing pro-poor processes and institutionsNACOBTA has been lobbying the government to make the application processes forconservancies, PTOs and concessions more community-friendly by simplifying andshortening them, and also by favouring conservancies above the private sector. NACOBTAand other NGO partners offer training to communities and CBTEs on how to involve all

14

stakeholders in the decision-making process. Part of the conservancy and PTO applicationrequirements are that communities be involved in, and agreement sought on, boundaries andthe use of resources. NACOBTA has worked with communities to explain and assist ininvolving the community and the poor.

(v) Institutional Development of NACOBTAThe development of NACOBTA as an initiator, implementor, communicator, facilitator andmatchmaker between the CBTEs, communities, private sector, NGOs and government is oneof the Association’s key strategies. These roles have enabled it to act as the focal point andstrong voice of the otherwise scattered CBTEs, supporting the needs and aspirations of itsmembers and acting as a channel of information both ways.

(vi) Creating links with the private sectorIntegrating CBTEs into the tourism industry to benefit the poor has also been one of themain strategies of NACOBTA. The focus has been on raising awareness and creating anunderstanding about CBTEs and the sustainable and equitable use of natural resourceswithin the private sector while lobbying for them to co-operate with CBTEs through support(advice and use of services) and joint ventures.

2.3 Specific actions to involve poor people in tourism

Appendix I shows the vast amount of specific actions being undertaken by NACOBTA andtherefore reflects the diversity of strategies being used by NACOBTA.

15

3. Results and Impacts

3.1 Progress and challenges

Of the four main strategies of NACOBTA the one that has made the most progress is theinstitutional strategy, followed by that at the micro-level. Although the strategy of working with theprivate sector has not seen as much progress as the former two, there has been substantial progressin the last year or two and it looks promising. The macro-level strategy has been hindered by thelack of active government engagement and its failure to fulfil its promises (section 3.1.3).

3.1.1 At the micro-level

ProgressThe assistance of NACOBTA and other partners to its members has ensured that many of theCBTEs have grown from strength to strength and are now able to run their enterprises in anacceptable and accountable manner. Some do not need funding anymore, e.g. the TorraConservancy is self-sufficient and has contributed greatly to the community by supporting theschool and clinic and is now looking towards setting up internet facilities at the local school. TheSpitzkoppe CBTE is receiving an income of N$30,000-50,000 per month gross and contributesN$600 each month into the community fund. The number of visitors to these CBTEs is increasingand the communities are running these enterprises independently with evident pride.

ChallengesOne of the challenges to NACOBTA is to assist its member enterprises to such an extent that theybecome self-sufficient and independent, while simultaneously contributing to the development ofthe local community. This can only happen if the staff/management of the enterprise are well-equipped with strategic planning skills as well as financial skills. These are gained by hands-ontraining and application on site, and not through general courses such as those offered byNACOBTA. The latter may be useful for those entering the CBTE business, but not for those whohave to compete or want to work with the private sector. This is obviously a challenge forNACOBTA in terms of the number of staff and skills it has, the distances that need to be covered toreach the enterprises, and the time required to spend at the enterprise with the staff to make animpact. This requires large amounts of money, which may not necessarily be available.

From those enterprises visited, Spitzkoppe had a good bookkeeping system in place but littleevaluation of expenditure and application of cost-cutting measures. Although, according to theNACOBTA Six-Monthly Report (01 March-31 August 2000), Spitzkoppe is supposed to have abusiness development plan, those working on the enterprise did not know why they kept records ofvisitors. One would expect the enterprise records to have been used in developing the business planas their records date back to 1994. This suggests that the members were not involved at all indeveloping the business plan. Members of Face to Face did not seem to understand much of whatwas in their proposal which was submitted to the Windhoek Municipality by NACOBTA,suggesting there was little involvement of members in developing the proposal. If that is the case,NACOBTA needs to work on strategies focusing on how to transfer skills between members.

One area in which NACOBTA is facing a great challenge is marketing the CBTEs vigorously.Again the staff do not really have skills in marketing commercially and seem to follow an NGO

16

marketing style, if at all. The focus has been mainly through advertisements in travel magazines andnewspapers, t-shirts and the production of sub-standard marketing material. For example, the 2000CBTE brochure is in too large a format (A4), lacks pictures, is too text-dense, and presented in afont that is too difficult to read and photocopy. The information also fails to raise empathy for thepoor or for CBT, or to convince readers that they should support CBT. The first page of thebrochure is about NACOBTA and fails to explain why CBTEs are important and need support.There is a need to engage the services of advertising experts because the cost-benefits will be higherwhen the marketing is done properly.

Members need to be trained in other forms of marketing other than dropping brochures or leaflets athotels or with tour operators. There needs to be more engagement with potential clients andpartners, like phoning or meeting with CBTEs themselves. At the moment CBTEs leave this taskentirely to NACOBTA which is over-stretched. The use of radio in advertising for example, couldalso be engaged more effectively particularly during or before the festive seasons and holidays.

Another challenge to NACOBTA is how to complement its current staff-base with those withbusiness skills and experience and at the same time try to move NACOBTA from an organisationbased on a purely development culture to striking a balance between development and corporateculture.

An assessment of the impact of support to CBTEs needs to be integrated into CBTE managementsystems when its purpose is well understood and internalised by the CBTE members

3.1.2 Of integrating CBTES into the mainstream tourism

ProgressIn the initial years NACOBTA concentrated on institutional development and fundraising. Now ithas evolved to focus more on offering services to its members, participating in policy interventionsand building links with the private sector to encourage joint ventures and closer co-operation withCBTEs.

The Association has tried to involve the private sector by acting as a mediator, initiator andfacilitator between various CBTEs and at least seven investors both locally and internationally. Oneof the joint ventures – that between the Uibasen Conservancy and Twyfelfontein Country Lodge –has been successfully concluded. In-roads have been made with the private sector, giving advice onproduct development and providing feedback on CBTE services. NACOBTA is intending toappoint a Joint Venture Co-ordinator in 2001 to liaise with the private sector.

Thus some progress, although slow, has been made but one needs to take into account thesystematic divide that existed between the two communities before the opening-up of the tourismindustry for the majority of the poor. The involvement of the private sector in advising NACOBTAshould be regarded as progress; so too the inclusion of some of the CBTEs in the promotionalmaterial of private sector tour operators. A good sign is the fact that private investors have initiateddiscussions with NACOBTA to facilitate negotiation with CBTEs. Co-operation in training is alsotaking place with the private sector through institutions like NATH. NACOBTA is no longersceptical of the private sector and sees them as essential partners in CBT.

17

ChallengesThe challenge to NACOBTA is to meet the standards expected by the private sector, namely theprovision of basic facilities and services at all CBTEs, so that tour operators will use their facilities.This in turn involves capital injection, which most CBTEs do not have, and that is why NACOBTAis lobbying the private sector to enter into joint ventures with the CBTEs: a bit of a chicken and eggsituation.

Another challenge is negotiating or facilitating business negotiations with shrewd business peopleand ensuring that the CBTEs get a good deal. This is a major challenge because NACOBTA staff orRossing, who does the training, do not really have the corporate business skills although they dohave the training and communications skills to talk to communities.

NACOBTA is also faced with working between three cultures: the traditional/community culturewhich is sometimes slow and prolonged; the corporate culture which has little time and wants tostrike deals quickly with lowest costs and highest returns; and the NGO/development culture, whichfocuses on benefits for people. This means that NACOBTA has to do a lot of preliminary workbefore bringing in the investor or potential joint-venture partner to meet the CBTE/conservancypartners.

The private sector has a low regard for communities as business people and NACOBTA has the taskof changing this view. This requires NACOBTA to have staff with excellent business skills andwho are able to convince the private sector in their own language, why they should invest in CBTEsand get involved in joint ventures.

It is important that the time invested in lobbying for and facilitating joint venture negotiation, isturned into effective deals which will improve the lot of the poor without the private sector takingover.

The slow progress in involving the private sector can also be attributed to the lack of staff withbusiness and financial skills within NACOBTA as most staff, if not all, come from adevelopment/NGO background. Although CBT in Namibia was initiated by the development sector,one has to acknowledge the fact that CBTEs need to be run as professional businesses with adevelopment perspective if they are to succeed and attract the private sector. To attract the privatesector one needs to be able to speak the same business language, if the aim is to convince them toenter into partnerships.

3.1.3 Of working at the macro-level

ProgressProgress at the macro-level cannot be attributed to NACOBTA alone, as many other stakeholdersare involved in policy formulation and advocacy processes. What is significant, is the developmentof regional tourism plans undertaken in partnership with the MET and other stakeholders includingNACOBTA. Another development that can be regarded as progress, is the fact that stakeholdersincluding NACOBTA have succeeded in convincing the MET to halt the process of grantingconcessions and PTOs to private sector companies until some conservancies in the process ofregistration have been established. The MET has already started registering conservancies andgranting PTOs to communal land communities. By the end of 2000, 17 conservancies will havebeen registered.

18

ChallengesThe fact that there is no national tourism policy eleven years after Independence is a majorchallenge for anyone working in tourism development. Although the government has conservancyand CBT policies in place, it has not followed-up its promises of support to communities inconservancies and CBT. One major challenge for NACOBTA is the huge task of assistingconservancies and CBT, with little or no government support, on a task that is essentiallygovernment responsibility. The government has only two people in the Directorate of Tourism inthe MET who are supposed to coordinate all CBT activities in a country as vast as Namibia. Theprocedures for registering conservancies and getting concessions are still not smooth-running, andPTOs and concessions are being granted to private sector individuals without the consideration andconsultation of communities. Here are some examples of the government’s unfulfilled promises:

! The MET will actively support those regions that have so far not established regional tourismassociations, and will assist them in tourism planning, and provide information, advice,contacts, etc needed for implementation. With only two staff members this is obviously animpossible task for the MET. NGOs like NACOBTA have been fulfilling this promise to date.

! All PTO and concession applications for a tourism enterprise must include details of anagreement between the applicant and the local community before it can be approved by MET.The MET has reneged on this promise recently, by granting private individuals concessions andPTOs in a registered conservancy (Khoadi/Hôas Conservancy) without first consulting the localcommunity, and when the conservancy itself needed the concession.

! The MET will promote the proactive marketing and promotion of enterprises run bycommunities or local individuals as a lack of marketing skills is one of their major constraints.MET support in marketing for NACOBTA has not been proactive at all despite regular requestsby NACOBTA for MET to include their brochures in their mailings. Requests for sharing stallswith NACOBTA at trade fairs has also not received positive response from MET.

! The MET will facilitate contacts between the informal, formal, banking sectors, government,voluntary and donor organisations to ensure the provision of investment incentives, soft loansand technical advice to informal sector tourism. MET will ensure that specific needs of smallscale community and informal sector enterprises are taken into account. Coordination in thetourism sector is being spearheaded by NGOs and a substantial part of this promise (incentives)is still waiting to be fulfilled and requires a national tourism policy framework in place in orderto be implemented.

! The MET will ensure that CBTEs are accommodated in regulations on grading, registration,marketing, etc. (e.g. that accommodation categories include community campsites and guidecategories include village guides). The 2000 Tourist Accommodation and Info Guide developedby the MET does not include community campsites, even 5 years after issuing the policydocuments.

! The MET will promote the proactive marketing and promotion of enterprises run bycommunities or local individuals (e.g. in material for those seeking socially andenvironmentally responsible tourism) as a lack of marketing skills is one of their majorconstraints. To date this remains to be seen. On a recent trip to London, the NACOBTAProgramme Manager found none of its CBT promotion materials at the High Commission orNamibia Tourism Office. NACOBTA staff have to contact the Tourism Office each time to findout if they have any of NACOBTA’s promotional materials – a proactive approach by the METin this regard, appears to be lacking.

! The MET will facilitate contacts between the informal sector, banking sector, government,formal sector and voluntary and donor organisations to ensure the provision of investmentincentives, soft loans, and technical advice to informal sector tourism. Specifically in designinginvestment incentives and facilitating soft loans for tourism development from banks anddonors. MET will ensure the specific needs of small-scale community and informal sector

19

enterprises are taken into account. A long-term goal will be to enable rural residents to movefrom the informal to formal sector and gain access to loans from the formal banking sector. Thefacilitation of contact between the informal and formal sector and donors is being spearheadedby NACOBTA and not the MET, despite the fact that NACOBTA is not sufficiently skilled innegotiating business contracts. Although the Ministry of Trade and Industry through NDC hasSME loans and other funds for Black Empowerment available, there has been no attempt fromthe government or NACOBTA to tap into these sources for CBTEs. The challenge forNACOBTA then, is to establish these links and to prove that CBTEs are financially viable toenable them to tap into these sources.

! The MET will give incentives for and preference to partnerships and or revenue sharingventures through designing tax laws and financial regulations so that they do not discouragerevenue sharing and wherever possible provide incentives for it. This has yet to take place.

(Text in italics from MET Circular no. 20 of 1995 Policy Document: Community-Based Tourism Development, 19??)

There is also no consistent pursuance and follow-up from the side of NACOBTA to ensure that theNamibia Tourism Office distributes its information. This probably explains why NACOBTAmembers do not feature in the Tourist Guide publication produced each year by the MET, which isdistributed for free everywhere. This is perhaps due to lack of staff. There is need for a more pro-active approach to get what is needed from government, though probably requires a marketingofficer.

Although interaction with the government was initially confined to the MET and the Ministry ofLands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation, the Association is now aiming to focus on a moreintegrated approach, particularly with the Regional Tourism Development Plans, by involvingstakeholders. The challenge to NACOBTA is to consistently and pro-actively lobby and buildpartnerships with stakeholders such as TELEKOM Namibia, NAMPOWER, the Ministry of Works,Transport and Telecommunication to attend to the needs of the members.

This shows that the success of a macro-level strategy depends a lot on the attitude of governmentand other stakeholders and their willingness to cooperate. For the Association outside the decision-making spheres of government, tremendous efforts are needed to make even limited in-roads at themacro-level.

3.1.4 Of building NACOBTA as an institution

ProgressFive years after the establishment of NACOBTA, the organisation has grown in many ways. Forexample, the size of its membership has increased from 16 to 46 and the number of employees fromone to six. The organisation has also made progress in the amount of funding it receives – fromN$4.6 million (1995-2000) to in excess of N$14.2 million (2000—2005) (see NACOBTAOperational Budget Summary 2000—2005). A total of 415 people have also been trained in CBTrelated courses in the last five years. NACOBTA has managed to establish itself amongst variousstakeholders, as an NGO which focuses primarily on tourism, in comparison with other CBRNMNGOs which specialise in training (Rossing), organisational development (RISE and Rossing),natural resource management (IRDNC) and craft marketing (Rossing).

Some barriers such as funding and under-staffing, have been overcome through additional or futurefunding. Marketing has been out-sourced and poor financial and management systems have beensolved by receiving management support and assistance to put these systems in place.

20

In the early years NACOBTA concentrated its efforts on institutional development and fundraising.It has now evolved as an organisation with a stronger emphasis on offering services to its membersthrough participating in policy interventions and building links with the private sector, thusencouraging joint ventures and closer cooperation with CBTEs.

NACOBTA has just developed its system to assess impacts in 2000. CBTE income and communityincome, number of people employed, number of person trained, grants given, CBTE with acceptablefinancial systems are some of the indicators used to assess impact.

Table 4 NACOBTA operational budget summary 2000—2005

Donor 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 Total

LIFE 1,179,911 *** 1,179,911

DfID * 2,087,940 1,772,417 1,959,678 1,200,000 7,020,035

Sida * 1,155,427 1,179,983 1,133,974 3,469,384

DfID * 598,398 364,499 162,595 1,125,492

Tour Operators andBooking System

52,290 132,716 345,084 400,000 500,000 1,430,090

Total 5,073,966 3,449,615 3,601,331 1,600,000 500,000 14,224,912

Total funding:1995-2000: N$4.6 million* = to be confirmed

ChallengesThe organisation is faced with many challenges such as: sustainability; assessment of impact; theinvolvement of its members in running the institution; contribution to costs through membershipfees; over-reliance on donors; the meeting of increasing demands by its members and a lack ofbusiness and financial skills among its staff.

As can be seen from the budget summary above, for the next five years using NACOBTA’sindicators, it is estimated that NACOBTA will generate only N$1.4 million of the N$14.2 million itis expected to generate through its own sources (the booking system and tour operators). Thefinancial sustainability of NACOBTA at the end of ten years is a challenge the Association willhave to deal with, particularly the issue of how to complement donor funding with local financialsupport or income to ensure that the Association will survive when donors withdraw.

Another challenge for NACOBTA is to put measures in place to assess the impact of CBTEs andNACOBTA’s work. A performance indicator system is being put in place, but these indicators needto be broadened to assess the multiplier effect of CBTEs and other intangible benefits, starting withan improved data collection process by NACOBTA. Some CBTEs have excellent data but do notknow how to use them to their own advantage and NACOBTA does not collect them.

Many of the members do not pay membership fees and are not directly involved in steeringNACOBTA, but instead see NACOBTA as a provider for their needs. The challenge is forNACOBTA to instil a sense of responsibility into its membership base by dedicating time tomembership matters.

21

As new conservancies emerge NACOBTA will be inundated with requests for assistance and itssmall number of staff will just not be able to meet the demand. The demand for support to membersrequires it to be member-specific and long-term, as it takes a while to transfer skills to people withlittle foundation in business. This requires that there be more balance in the development skills onthe one hand and financial, business, tourism and marketing skills on the other amongst theNACOBTA staff. It is thus important that an institution is well equipped with enough staff, fundsand skills to take on the institutional strategy for pro-poor tourism as it is a very demanding processin terms of time, effort and money.

3.1.5 Views of others

National Tourist OfficeThe National Tourist Officer thought that NACOBTA was important, as the demand for pro-poortourism has been increasing. According to her, one out of seven tourists is interested in pro-poortourism and makes enquiries through their offices which are then referred to NACOBTA, or theirmembers. She also claimed that the National Tourist Office markets CBTEs both nationally andinternationally as part of their pro-poor policy, although no financial assistance is provided. TheNACOBTA programme manager however, does not think that special efforts have been made tomarket CBTEs because in spite of numerous requests from NACOBTA to have their materialsdisplayed and receive requests for more when they run out, they never do. Neither do theirinternational offices display NACOBTA materials.

The Officer also highlighted some complaints they had received concerning NACOBTA CBTEs:

" Some are too noisy" Some are not clean enough" They are not up to standard in terms lack of showers, ablution, or filthy bathrooms" Communication gap with the customers, particularly in German and Dutch

Programme managerThe project initiator thinks that the work of NACOBTA is important and has made a difference topro-poor tourism, although the concept of pro-poor tourism was initially difficult to raise as an issuefor both the government and communities. This is because the government did not really have anypro-poor policies in place that took an integrated approach to pro-poor tourism.

Trying to get private tour operators to buy into PPT products has been slow, but is now bearingfruits with tour operators advising on product development and including PPT in their brochures.NACOBTA has been assisting pro-poor CBTEs to develop to a standard that will enable them toaccess the market and meet pre-defined standards.

The biggest challenge of all for NACOBTA has been to prove that pro-poor tourism works when ithas failed everywhere else. The success of pro-poor tourism enterprises like Torra and its impact onthe poor, shows that part of the answer lies in the involvement of the private sector. Evidence of thisimpact can be seen where enterprises invest in the education of their communities, createemployment and provide much-needed cash. A pro-poor approach has also led to the equitabledistribution of resources, particularly rights over wildlife, to communal area populations whichpreviously had no access to them. What NACOBTA has done and is doing, is to assist communitiesgain access to these resources and provide them with the skills and opportunities to utilise themeffectively for alleviating poverty in their communities.

22

NACOBTA has also realised with time that small grants are not effective in generating the impactnecessary to bring pro-poor tourism into the mainstream tourism industry, and is now busyinvolving the private sector in costing products realistically. These grants never used to includetransport and labour costs for example, and has in the past led to the development of substandardfacilities, negating the impact NACOBTA has aimed to make.

Unrest in the Caprivi region has impacted negatively on the CBTEs, with no tourism taking placeand the withdrawal of NGOs from conflict situations resulting in low moral for communities.NACOBTA had to re-think how to introduce CBT back into the Caprivi region and increase it forthe rest of the country. One strategy has been to look at the Southern African region as a whole andcreate safe routes which pass through the whole region, thus tapping into tourists from othercountries and thereby creating regional pro-poor products.

The existence of NACOBTA has helped to focus pro-poor tourism efforts in Namibia in terms ofpro-poor tourism enterprise development, product development, private sector involvement,funding, marketing and lobbying for policy reform. This need will continue to exist for some time.

MembersSpitzkoppe: “NACOBTA has provided our members with various types of training and withcontacts with donors. The organisation has also provided us with funds to furnish the two newbungalows and install showers and toilets. They have also provided us with a sign board andassisted with advertising the bungalows.”

When the researcher remarked that there was no sign on the main road indicating how to get to theCBTE, the members indicated then that they would put up the signboard they received fromNACOBTA a while ago.

Penduka:” NACOBTA has provided training for our members responsible for accommodation andit has been a great help. We also get a lot of clients who tell us they heard about us throughNACOBTA.”

This manager could not recall what or who NACOBTA was at the beginning of the interview.

Face to Face: “NACOBTA provided us with training on tourism and tour guiding and have alsoproduced a new promotional leaflet for us. They have also organised for us to attend training on citytours paid for by the Windhoek Municipality.”

These members were not able to say how many leaflets were produced by NACOBTA nor how theywere distributed. They also did not know they had a funding proposal which had been submitted tothe Municipality.

Tour operatorsOperator 1: This tour operator thinks that NACOBTA has an important role to play in pro-poortourism particularly in terms of control, monitoring, advice and as a private sector contact throughwhich they can book sites. He thinks there is a great demand for pro-poor tourism, but that CBTEsmust adhere to a minimum standard and should offer what they say they offer in the promotionalmaterials. He also believes that CBTEs can complement tour operators by offering some basicgoods, so that tour operators do not have to carry too much such as water, cold drinks, fire woodand canned food. The CBTEs should also offer services such as clean toilets and showers,

23

information about the roads and animals that they are skilled to do, thereby using and adding valueto local skills and knowledge that would not be needed anywhere else.

His experience is that camping sites are usually too near each other with too many visitors booked atonce. A lot of the time water is not available, fridges are not working or not stocked with drinks,and more importantly, tour guides are not able to book in advance and make reservations becausemost CBTEs do not have telephones.

He and his clients do not expect modern showers or toilets, but bucket showers and drop loos thatare clean at all times will do. In his opinion, NACOBTA needs to concentrate on ensuring thatCBTE facilities meet basic standards as well as offering the above-mentioned goods and servicesand providing a central booking system.

Operator 2: Their clients would like to meet people and experience local culture, but do not want tocamp and would prefer to stay in lodges. They therefore cannot use CBTEs at the moment until theyoffer these facilities.

Operator 3: They operate in the mass market and feel that CBTEs are not equipped to deal withsuch large numbers at once, and recommend that CBTEs try to work with smaller tour operators.

Development agency involvedAccording to SIDA, the Swedish Development Agency that funds NACOBTA, the initiative isdoing a good job in creating revenue and employment for the poor and influencing decision-makersto give rights over natural resources to the poor, so that communities can use tourism as anadditional income to using the land.

They are of the opinion that there is a high demand for NACOBTA services because they are goodand that demand is greater than current supply. They also think that there are too many donorsinvolved in the field of community-based natural resources management.

The impact of NACOBTA for them, is evidenced by the profit made by CBTEs working withNACOBTA which focuses on the poor.

TouristsFive tourists (two German, one Australian, one Dutch and one British) were interviewed and onlyone of them knew of NACOBTA – through their brochure. They have all visited NACOBTACBTEs and had the following to say:

! The people were friendly and knowledgeable! Some services were a bit expensive(Katutura tour)! It was nice to have cold drinks available! Some CBTE maps were poor and confusing! The CBTEs were poorly sign posted! Some campsites were too noisy, there is a need for a tourists code of conduct to be given to

tourists! Some camping sites are too near each other! Some CBTE employees did not keep time! CBTEs have something good to offer! Cultural experience was excellent

24

CriticsOne critic was a private business person who thought that NACOBTA was not professional enoughin its business dealings. This person had originally submitted a tender for one of the joint ventureoffers and complained that seven weeks after submitting their application they had not heard fromNACOBTA, even by way of a letter of acknowledgement.

Another critic was a tour operator who thought that NACOBTA did not have the right people towork with the private sector, as private sector people tend to only listen to people who are confidentand have business know-how.

3.2 Relevance to poverty reduction

NACOBTA is explicitly pro-poor because it focuses on working with tourism enterprises which aimto significantly benefit disadvantaged communities; individuals or enterprises with limited access tofinancial resources and skills; enterprises owned by communities, organisations or individuals oflocal communities, and also with enterprises who offer clear community benefits. Most of thecommunities where NACOBTA operates have high numbers of unemployed people and the lowestincomes per capita. Most members of these communities do not own the land on which they liveand have been disadvantaged in the past, thus constituting part of the poor.

The aim of NACOBTA is to assist communities gain access to, and use natural resourcessustainably to create employment, thereby raising income levels and promoting rural developmentby increasing the viability of CBTEs and integrating CBT into the tourism industry.

According to the 1995 Namibia Food Security and Nutrition Assessment Report, communal areasdirectly support 95% of the nation’s farming population and have the highest degree of poverty,household food insecurity and malnutrition (please see Box 1).Most of the people involved in managing CBTEs are those who are poor and have some skills,social standing or some basic schooling but are unemployed. These include men, women, youthsand the disabled. The very poor tend to do the casual jobs or benefit from informal sector activities.

Table 5 Types of poor benefiting from NACOBTA member enterprises:

! Seamstresses ! Drivers,! Gemstone miners ! Informal Sector sellers! Craft makers ! Trackers! Guides ! Fishermen and women! Cultural performers ! Cleaners! Donkey cart makers ! Builders! Grass harvesters ! Reed harvesters! Dressmakers ! Wood collectors! Canoe operators

25

3.3 Case studies

The members of NACOBTA vary greatly in terms of their activities, location, size, period inbusiness, size of community, income, number and type of people employed and whether it is aconservancy or not. The following section tries to give a picture of the different types of membersfound in NACOBTA. Spitzkoppe is a reasonably well-established CBTE, offering campsites and acouple of bungalows. Face to Face is a tour guide CBTE, which focuses on black suburbs in thecapital city and is very new and small. Penduka focuses on craft making for export and providesaccommodation for tourists and is almost ten years old. Torra is a conservancy and has a lodgethrough a joint venture with private sector partners and is one of the most successful CBTEs anddoes not need any outside funding. Nyae Nyae is a conservancy of the San community and focuseson trophy hunting and craft making. Both the latter two conservancies became conservancies in1998. The data also give information about other CBTEs and general income fromconservancies/CBTEs.

3.3.a Spitzkoppe CBTE

Spitzkoppe was established in 1992 and is owned and run by 19 (8 women and 11 men) members ofthe community. It is situated in the Namib desert offering a landscape of special shaped bouldersand mountains. They offer campsites and a couple of bungalows. Most visitors are tour groups whospend a day or a maximum of two nights camping. The visitors pay an entrance fee and a fee for thecamp-site. There is a small shop that sells drinks and basic necessities. The initiative is reasonablyprofitable and well-established.

The CBTE is run by a management committee (MC), consisting of five women and four men. Someof them are community leaders, representing the community on the MC and other members of theenterprise. Most committee members are able to speak basic English, drive a car, operate a phone,and have some form of schooling (at least attended high school).

Women outnumber men by one on the MC, and they do not just hold the lowest positions. Eachmember is paid the same (N$450/month) irrespective of what they do or who they are. This hasrecently caused problems as men were doing most of the work – building and cleaning the area, etcwhile women had less to do. This was solved by paying those doing the hard labour an extraN$50.00 a week each. Skilled community members such as builders have also been contracted tobuild structures such as the current construction of the bar/restaurant.

The very poor are employed as casual labourers cleaning, collecting wood and water as and whenneeded at the rate of N$20/day. The very poor also mine gemstones and sell them to those workingat the CBTE who then sell them inside the camp to visitors at a profit.

Each member’s income supports 3-10 people. About nine out of ten members do not own their ownhomes and live with relatives. At least 5 members own goats. A sum of N$600.00 is donated to thecommunity fund each month.

Beneficiaries! *Local Gemstone Miners: Able to sell their gemstones to CBTE members and tourists outside

the camp for income! Members of the CBTE: Have regular income, funeral contribution, access to loans, food and

clothing donations by tourists, receive training

26

! Local Shop owner: tourists sometimes buy supplies, CBTE buys fuel,! Suppliers: CBTE buys building materials, furnishings and shop supplies from nearby town! *Casual workers: receive an income although irregular! *Family members of the CBTE members: Benefit from the income of members by way of

meals, housing, remittance! *Neighbouring communities: Receive contributions towards funeral costs from CBTE, access to

use of phone, sale of gemstones! *Local community: benefits from monthly community fund contributions by the CBTE, access

to loans from CBTE, building of community hall, access to telephone, access to transport, saleof gemstones, access to solar electricity, solar street lights, toilet added to church building

! *Local school: contributions towards repairs and school tours! Garage owner in nearby town: Income from fuel and car maintenance. CBTE second hand cars

cost a lot to repair and maintain,! Private Doctors: Members’ bills and clinic fees paid by CBTE! Telecommunication Company: Payment of monthly telephone bill! *Fire Wood Supplier: Income from selling wood to the CBTE

Those affected by negative impacts

! *Local farmers: Lost access to grazing land! *Local and neighbouring communities: No access to the land occupied by CBTE— must make

detours around CBTE, have to share scarce water with CBTE, no free movement around theCBTE

! Environment: Increased waste disposal, quality of roads deteriorate from frequent use* poor

Table 6 Financial earnings of the poor: Spitzkoppe

Approx amount(N$ range)

Who earns it(type of person)

Earners Futureearners

Wage income 450.00/p/month Members of CBTE 19 30

Informal sector sales 10—200/p/month Members of CBTEGemstone miners

25 100

Casual labour 20—140.00/p/month Unskilled labourers 20 14

Small enterpriseprofits(collective income)

3 000/month total Members as group 19 30

Collective income to thecommunity

450.00/month total Community 450.00/mnth 500

Overtime 50.00/p/month Members 19 25

Other cash income 32.00/p/month Goat farmers 8 12

The total gross revenue for this enterprise for October 2000 was N$222,818. For a community ofabout 500 people this CBTE has a total gross local earnings of N$158,772 per year which wouldtranslate into an average per capita income of N$317.54 per year if the income were to be evenlydistributed. Due to this income this community can be classified as better off because of this CBTEonly. According to the Namibia Food Security and Nutrition Assessment Report, 1,995 householdswith a standard consumption level (SCL) of N$469/year are classified as better-off. The incomeearnings per person due to this CBTE is more than double the SCL. This community has movedfrom being a very poor community to one that is ‘poor’. What needs to be addressed however, is thedistribution of income within the community to ensure that the very poor also benefit.

27

3.3.b Penduka

Penduka is an enterprise that produces bedding, cushions, clothes and other crafts for the exportmarket (Scandinavia and Holland) mainly. It also offers accommodation and limited conference andrestaurant facilities for visitors as a sideline to its main business activities. Although it has greatpotential as a tourism business it does very little to market itself as tourism is not its core business.This enterprise is owned by 23 members, 20 of whom are women who work as full-time staff. Threeof the members are deaf and another three have other disabilities. The manager is a disabled female.

They employ a lot of casual workers (all women) to do the labour-intensive sewing work. Thisincludes 95-100 women each month from the adjacent informal settlement who left their ruralhomes for greener pastures in the city, Windhoek and 500 women per month in the rural areas ascasual labourers depending on how many orders they receive. The casual workers in Windhoek canearn about N$200-700/month and the rural casual workers N$150/month when it is busy. This isdouble the normal wage for domestic and farm workers. What they earn also depends on the speedof their work as payment is per finished item. The staff (members) are paid in the range of N$750-1500 per month, depending on how long they have been members; longer serving members get paidmore.

The staff and casual labourers use their income to support themselves and relatives by sendingmoney home to their villages and paying school fees and buying school uniforms for their ownchildren and those of relatives. As they all come from rural areas they support more people withtheir income: each member of staff or casual worker supports 30-50 people. Casual labourers aretrained to sew, make pottery and to make solar stoves. At the time of visit many women werequeuing for the opportunity to make solar stoves, which had proven to be very popular as thetraining and materials were free. The casual workers are paid for each piece of work they do and thissometimes creates cash-flow problems as the selling of products often takes a long time.

Thus the average total staff income/month is about N$25,875 while the average total income ofurban casual workers can be as much as N$45,000 per month and for rural casual workers as muchas N$75,000. The average total monthly income in wages from this enterprise can even be as highas N$146,000 each month. This information is depicted more clearly in the table below.

Beneficiaries! Members of the CBTE: Have regular income, accommodation on premises, no need for

transport costs! Suppliers: CBTE buys materials, threads, ink, paint to make products! *Casual workers: receive an income although irregular! *Family members of the CBTE members: Benefit from the income of members by way of

meals, housing, remittance! *Local community: benefits from training in sewing and solar stove production, save on energy

and time in cooking! Garage owner: Income from fuel and car maintenance.! Telecommunication Company: Payment of monthly telephone bill! Municipality: CBTE pays rates! Families and organisations using facilities for parties and meetings! Tourists: Can be accommodated and provided with meals

28

! *Members of the nearby recycling project: Recycled products of women and men sold in theshop of CBTE

! *Women Craft makers in the community: Products sold in CBTE shop! *Families of casual workers: Benefit from the income of casual workers by way of meals,

housing, remittance! Shipping Company: income from shipping orders overseas! Overseas clients: income from selling products locally and benefit of using hand made products

Negative Impacts! *Local residents: Limited access to fishing at the nearby damEnvironment: Quality of roads deteriorate from frequent use* poor

Financial benefits to the poor

Table 7 Financial earnings of the poor: Penduka

Amount/p/person(N$ range)

Who earns it How many earnit

How manyin future?

Wage income 750-1,500/month Members ofCBTE

23 25

*Informal sector sales 50-200/month Craft makers 20 50

Casual labour 150-700/month Womenembroiders

600 (only about100 earnregularly)

600

Small enterprise profits 12,000/month Members 23 25

Collective income tothe community

none None None None

A total of 673 poor people derive some sort of financial benefit from this enterprise, some moreregularly than others. Income for the 500 rural casual labourers is more sporadic than those inWindhoek. This number is likely to increase in the regions as the CBTE continues to train women tosew and run their own enterprises as they have done already. Each of these people support onaverage between 30-50 people with their income. This means that about 10,920 are impacted by thefinancial benefits of this enterprise. Consequently, if this enterprise were to collapse it would meanabout 11,000 people would become worse off and more vulnerable.

These are significant figures in terms of looking at employment and the number of people beingprotected from vulnerability and poverty. Except for those crafts people who sell their crafts throughthe craft shop at Penduka, the rest are no longer poor but will be as soon as they lose their income atPenduka. As for Spitzkoppe, Penduka makes a difference to poverty in Namibia.

3.3.c Face to Face

Face to Face is a new (established July1999) CBTE that offers tours of black history and Katutura,the Windhoek suburb reserved for blacks before Independence and which is still primarily black.The four members of the enterprise are recent school graduates who are unemployed and have cometo the city to look for work. One of them was a taxi driver and came up with the idea. Two of the

29

members are female, and one of them has a young child living with her grandmother. They live withrelatives and operate from one of their residences in Windhoek.

Three of them do the tour guiding while one of the females takes the bookings and does thebookkeeping. They do not have a vehicle but hire a taxi from friends. The tour takes three hours andthey require a minimum of two people.

NACOBTA has produced brochures for this enterprise which are distributed to guesthouses andtour companies. The perception of all the CBTEs visited, has been that the distribution of brochuresis their main marketing strategy. At the time of visiting FACE to FACE all the staff members werein the office, despite the fact that they have not had many bookings in the past month. Theresponsibility for marketing themselves is left to NACOBTA, which again consists mainly ofbrochures and articles in papers and magazines – direct marketing to tourists and tour operators israre or non-existent.

Beneficiaries! *Members of the CBTE: Have regular income, gaining multiple skills, meet people! *Taxi Owner: CBTE hires car from taxi driver! *Members of the Greenwell Matongo Recycling Centre: Visitors buy their products! *Family members of the CBTE members: Benefit from the income of members by way of

contribution to electricity/water costs and food• Local community: meeting and interacting with people from other countries they would

otherwise never meet! Garage owner: Income from fuel and car maintenance! Telecommunication Company: Payment of monthly telephone bill! Municipality: CBTE members contribute to paying rates where they stay! *Informal Sector: Tourist buy their food and drinks at the market and talk to them! *Families in Katutura Meet and interact with tourists! Tourists: Find out about how the majority of people in Windhoek live and about Black

Namibian History! *Members and of Penduka: Clients go and eat at the Penduka Restaurant and buy crafts! *Women Craft makers in the community: Whose crafts are sold at the Penduka shop

Those affected by negative impacts! *Local community: Tourist may take pictures of them, invasion of their privacy! *Families in Katutura: Tourist may take pictures of them, invasion of their privacy* =Poor

Financial benefits to the poor: Face to Face

30

Table 8 Financial earnings of the poor: Face to Face

Amount/person(N$ range)

Who earns it(type of person)

How manyearn it

How manyin future?

Wage income 100-300/month Members of CBTE 4 10

Informal sector sales 30-150/month Informal traders at market 6 50

Recyclingcentre(SME)

10-60/person/month Members of recyclingCentre

10 20

Informal sector,transport

360/month Taxi owner 01 5

Informal sector sales:Crafts

14- 100/person/month Women selling throughPenduka shop

5 20

Small enterpriseprofits

130/person/month Members 4 40

Collective income tothe community

none None None none

This new enterprise already brings financial benefits to 48 people in terms of a monthly income thatamounts to about N$5,000 each month and translates into a total annual income of N$60,000. Thesefinancial benefits have a more far-reaching impact than for just the direct income earners, as eachearner supports on average 15 people. Thus the total financial benefits can be felt by as many as 720people. Once it is fully established the potential outreach of this enterprise could be very high, andthere is no doubt that with the necessary support and skills this enterprise could have a dramaticimpact on poverty in Namibia.

3.3.d Nyae Nyae Conservancy

The Nyae Nyae CBTE is a conservancy of the San community, which focuses on trophy hunting andcraft making. The conservancy was established in 1998 and generates funds from bed levies forguests using the local lodge.

Beneficiaries

! Community: benefit from community fund! Wage earners: Have income that improves their vulnerability status! Families of wage earners: benefit from income! Environment: Donation of wildlife as non-financial benefit to the community by the state,

donors and private sector! Craft makers: Are able to produce and sell their products to tourist for income! Cultural Performers: Can make income from performances! Guides: Generate income form their tracking and hunting skills through wages! Community: Gets meat from hunting

Negative impacts

Negative impacts could arise from the mismanagement of wildlife through trophy hunting, but thishas not been the case so far as conservation is part of the conservancy’s management strategy.

31

Table 9 Financial earnings of the poor: Nyae Nyae conservancy (1998)

Amount/ year(N$ approx)

Who earns it(type of person)

How manyearn it

How manyin future?

Wage income 9500/person Full-time workers 6 12

Trophy hunting (a) 115 000 Community

Bed levy (b) 3000 Community

Casual labour 1406/person Casual workers 32 50

Other 4 000 Community

Crafts 57 835 Informal sector craftmakers

Cultural tourism 1750/person Cultural performers 16 100

Collective income to thecommunity (a+b+ other)

(122 000) Community (2631)

Total income 227 835

Source: Adapted from LIFE Report:Oct- Mar 1999

As one of the more marginalised communities in Namibia, and in a region faced with changinglifestyles, from nomadic to more settled, it is heartening to notice that this community is making useof its natural resources and traditional skills to raise its standard of living. Looking at the tableshowing CBTE income over the past four years, the Nyae Nyae community has grown from strengthto strength making a gross income of nearly N$1million in 2000 alone. This translates intoN$373.70 per person in the community per year, and means that the community as a whole is nolonger classified as very poor but poor (SCL for very poor = less than N$ 248.34). Again, this is duesolely to the income from the CBTE and if this trend were to continue, the community wouldbecome better-off. It is also worth noting that some of the income from the CBTE goes directly intothe community fund.

3.3e Torra Bay CBTE

Torra is a conservancy on the coast in the Namib Desert and one of the most successful CBTEs todate, because it no longer needs funds from outside. The community entered into a joint venturewith private partners and established a lodge which generates funds for the community as well asproviding employment to community members.

Table 10 Financial earnings of the poor: Torra (1998)

Amount/year(N$ approx)

Who earns it How manyearn it

How manyin future?

Wage income 15994.90/person Fulltime lodge workers 10

Trophy hunting (a) 50 000 Community

Tourist lodge (b) 120 000 Community

Collective income tothe community (a+b)

(170 000) Community (600)

Total income 329 949

Source: Adapted from LIFE Report: Oct- Mar 1999

32

The total local earnings averaged-out for the population in 1998 amounted to N$550 per person peryear. This again moves the community from being defined as poor and very poor to one that isbetter-off. The people of this community have already started reaping the benefits from the CBTE.The school is about to become connected to the internet, with many basic needs already being metfrom this enterprise. If the community did not take up this CBTE opportunity, they would have towait for decades for many of these benefits to come to them via the State, as in other Namibiancommunities.

3.4. Impact of CBTEs on the poor

The data on the financial earnings of the poor presented in the tables for Penduka, Spitzkoppe andFace-to-Face were collected from interviews with staff from these specific CBTEs. They are roughestimates and not precise data. Data for all other CBTEs has been extracted from the semi-annualreports of LIFE. The data covers only 9 out of 45 members of NACOBTA, and not all CBTEseither. The data from LIFE focuses mainly on tangible benefits such as financial income to thecommunity, wages and game donation rather than intangible benefits, as has been done for the casestudies.

What has transpired from interviews with members of the case study CBTEs, is that the income theyreceive has made them less vulnerable to hunger. Many were pleased that they had acquired newskills which could be used locally without them having to leave their communities. Others found theopportunity to be their own bosses very rewarding. The fact that they were able to assist theircommunity was also highlighted as an important factor by the interviewees. The chance to manageand control resources that were previously not accessible to the poor was also welcomed by themembers interviewed.

The case studies show that CBTEs impact on many people directly and indirectly, particularly thepoor, and this impact is growing significantly year on year (see Appendix on Impacts onLivelihoods of the Poor).

Of the three CBTEs visited, women formed about fifty percent of the membership – a good sign thatwomen are also benefiting from CBTEs, though this did vary across regions. All three case studiesshowed that CBTEs reduced the vulnerability of households in the CBTE communities involved,and that the impact was wider than for just the immediate employees and members of CBTEs, astheir income made it possible to pay for school fees, food and other needs that required cash. Thecase studies also show that CBTEs generate spin-offs for the poor in the informal sector, throughcraft-making, cultural performance and trading. It also offers casual labour opportunities for peoplewho would otherwise not have any other means of income.

The case studies also show that those who benefit most are those with some kind of basic skills oreducation, and are either able to drive, read and communicate in English, hunt, make crafts or havethe educational background to be trained. The very poor usually do not have many of these and tendto be used as casual labour.

Data available also shows that more established CBTEs tend to have a higher income than newly-formed CBTEs, but the type of activities an CBTE is engaged with also determines their levels ofincome. Some CBTEs are involved in activities other than tourism such as thatchgrass harvesting,and this brings in substantial additional revenue to the community. Those engaged in joint ventureswith the private sector (Nyae Nyae and Torra) seem to do better than those on their own.

33

Income from most of the Caprivi CBTEs has dropped significantly since the unrest began, astourism came to a halt.

The total collective income due to CBTEs over the past six years amounts to almost N$2 millionover the same period comes to just over N$5 million.

Income generated from CBTEs in the five years since 1995 amounts to more than N$7 million, mostof which goes on wages. With the exception of CBTEs in the Caprivi area, the data shows anincrease in income from CBTEs. This means that CBTEs are bringing desperately needed cash tothe poor in rural communities. The very poor also benefit from CBTEs through the community fundincome which is different from that earned in wages, because it is earned by the community as awhole and may be used for a range of collective expenditures. The communities in which CBTEsoperate have moved from being very poor to better-off or poor in terms of the income level of theircommunity. Twenty five percent of those in management committees of conservancies are womenand in many of the CBTEs women make up a substantial number, if not the majority, of thoseearning wages.

Many of the CBTEs have not reached their potential yet due to lack of skills and investment, whileothers are still being set up as many communities apply for conservancies, concessions and PTO.One can thus assume that the income generated to date is only a fraction of what could be earnedonce the CBTEs have been up-graded and their capacity improved. This increase could be boostedover the next five years by a strong local, regional and international marketing drive if politicalstability is restored in Caprivi and Kavango.

According to the proposed budget, by 2005 NACOBTA expenditure over 10 years will have totalledN$19 million, an amount which is projected to help create 320 jobs within member CBTEs who areexpected to have a gross income of N$3.7 million each year by 2005. The estimated total grossincome of member CBTEs from now until 2005, amounts to nearly N$15,000,000 or probablyaround N$22 million, including income already earned. If NACOBTA’s $19 million investmentover 10 years has generated the N$22 million earned by BTEs, this would suggest a good returngiven that CBTEs would continue to earn around N$3.7 per year on an on-going basis. However,there are many caveats to this simple comparison. NACOBTA’s future budget is likely to be muchlarger, as only promised funding is included. Such income estimates are merely approximate; thismakes it difficult to predict what the gross income (total revenue) is likely to be in reality. So evenafter allowing for costs, actual profits could be much lower (however many of the ‘costs’ arepayments to local poor workers, so are off-set by benefits). Also, income estimates are only a partialindicator of the livelihood benefits of CBTEs to the poor, and, more importantly, NACOBTA’sexpenditure is only one contributor to the development of the CBTEs – investments from manyother organisations and individuals are involved as well. On the other hand, the income of otherCBTEs that are not currently NACOBTA members is not included (see tables below), and could inpart be attributed to NACOBTA’s general promotion of CBT. Nevertheless, the ball park figuresindicate that investment is reasonable and in line with returns, taking into the account the non-financial benefits and the likelihood that much of the CBTEs annual earnings would be sustainedbeyond the period of NACOBTA’s input.

34

3.5 Broader contributions to poverty alleviation

NACOBTA and its partners have made a formidable contribution towards reaching the nationalobjectives of sustaining economic growth, creating employment, reducing inequalities anderadicating poverty. This is evidenced by the fact that rural communities are making an incomenever heard of before in communal areas and that jobs are being created within communal areasinstead of people migrating to the urban areas. The study shows that most CBTEs are making anincome that has changed their communities from being poor or very poor to being better off. Thishas contributed significantly towards the equitable distribution of resources between urban and ruralcommunities.

The income from conservancies over the past three years has grown by 42%. The total income fromeight conservancies with a total population of 15,675 for 1999 and 2000 alone amounts to N$4.3million. With the number of conservancies increasing and the Northwest region being developedinto a tourism area, and the increasing demand for CBT in the tourism market, CBTE income overthe next ten years is bound to grow and consequently have a positive impact for poverty alleviation.

The community structures being developed through CBT are also proving to bring cohesion tocommunities, even though this was difficult at first. Outsiders are using them to reach communities,though most importantly, is the democratic style of communication and consultation being adoptedthat will have a long-term effect on leadership and accountability in Namibia. Leaders at thenational, regional and local level will be held more accountable by their communities in the future

Natural resource management by communities with power over resources is already starting to bearfruit, as communities start to enjoy the benefits from managing their resources and the State realisesthat it cannot do it alone. The return of wildlife to communities is only the beginning of the processof the conservation of nature and the preservation of culture by the nation, as hopefully thegovernment seeks to restore rights over resources to other communities. From this, people will havea more responsible attitude towards their natural resources as they realise their true value.

In the long-term, CBT will definitely become part of the tourism industry as NACOBTA continuesto strengthen its ties with the private sector, and rural communities become stronger and moreorganised.

Provided that the government and the private sector play their role in mainstreaming pro-poortourism and there is political stability, CBT is going to be one of the more significant andsustainable sources of income in communal areas, keeping many households from being vulnerableand providing cash. One aspect that needs to be avoided is donor over-dependency. In this regardthe involvement of the State and private sector should be nurtured, as the success of pro-poortourism relies heavily on the commitment and ownership of this idea by the State, private sector andthe communities themselves. This requires the State to put essential policies in place and to backthem up while ensuring that political decisions do not harm the most vulnerable by affecting theindustry.

3.6 Anticipated impacts

NACOBTA anticipates pro-poor CBTEs to improve living standards in communal areas byincreasing the income and employment from tourism. It is also anticipated that the number of

35

people employed in CBTEs will increase to 320 in the next five years, while the viability of CBTEswill be increased. More communities are expected to benefit from CBTEs as other regions developand implement their tourism development plans. More people are expected to be trained and thenumber of visitors to CBTEs is expected to increase to 100,000 over the next five years.

Lack of infrastructure development (telephone lines, provision of clean water, poor roads etc.) andthe absence of a tourism coordinating policy are likely to result in problems. Another potentialproblem is responding to members’ demands for support and training while staffing is limited innumbers.

The Association is not very financially sustainable and is mostly dependent on donor funding,although there are plans to generate more income from introducing a marketing and bookingsystem. Institutionally it is very sustainable, and one could argue that as long as the governmentdoes not become more actively involved in pro-poor tourism, the greater the need for anorganisation like NACOBTA and its related activities.

Judging from the income generated for the communities, one could conclude that if more jointventures could be established between the private sector and the communities the more sustainablethe outputs of NACOBTA would be.

The strategy of having an institution like NACOBTA to promote PPT is replicable, although it doesrequire a lot of financial investment and effort to take off.

Table 11 NACOBTA projected indicators

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Indicator

NACOBTA members 45 55 65 75 80 85

CBTE employees 163 200 230 260 290 320

CBTEs gross income 1.472.500 1.800.000 2.160.000 2.592.000 3.110.400 3.732.480

NACOBTA trainees 182 220 260 280 200 150

Number of visitors atCBTEs

58 900 68 000 75 000 85 000 95 000 100 000

CBTEs with goodfinance systems

8 20 30 40 50 60

CBTEs with supportpackage

10 20 28 34 38 38

CBTEs with businessplans

9 20 30 40 50 60

Number of grants toCBTEs

5 16 11 11 5 2

Joint venturesagreements

1 6 11 15 18 20

36

4. Review and Lessons

4.1 Reflections on this pro-poor tourism initiative

4.1.1 Strengths

NACOBTA’s main strengths lie in its capacity to network with and influence various stakeholders,together with the fact that it has no self-serving aim other than to help the poor benefit from naturalresources to alleviate poverty. NACOBTA, as an institution that coordinates, facilitates andmediates on behalf of CBTEs, is regarded as being singularly placed to promote pro-poor tourism.Although there are many other stakeholders involved in CBNRM issues, they all have their ownspecific focus, such as training or community development. The focus of NACOBTA has alwaysbeen PPT, which has helped to keep PPT at the centre of all discussions and activities in theCBNRM movement.

The importance of being a membership organisation cannot be over-emphasised, as this allows theorganisation to focus more on issues raised by its members rather than on ideas developed by NGOworkers. In addition, it gives the organisation more credibility and authority in promoting andlobbying for member interests with the private sector, government and donors. This makesnegotiation easier with the private sector, because they are able to deal with the members directly.Also, donors feel more comfortable giving money to a membership organisation because theybelieve that it is likely to be more sustainable when beneficiaries are directly involved. Thegovernment is also more likely to listen and come to an agreement with a membership organisation,rather than an ordinary tourism NGO.

Focusing on the poor and community development are great strengths of NACOBTA, and drawsempathy and understanding from both donors and the private sector because they are issues thateveryone is concerned about. This has been backed-up by committed and enthusiastic developmentstaff, another key advantage of NACOBTA.

Another strength has been NACOBTA’s ability to focus on those CBTEs which are viable. This isalso linked to it being a membership organisation with clear membership criteria. This practicewould have been more difficult to implement for an ordinary NGO.

4.1.2 Weaknesses

The main weakness of NACOBTA is its lack of business, tourism and financial expertise. Althoughthe institution has excellent development know-how, it is important to achieve the right balance ofbusiness and development skills in order to make in-roads into the private sector and to ensure thatCBTEs are viable.

Over-reliance on donor funding is another weakness, as this might create a dependency for theinstitution as well as for its individual members on external financing. Currently very few of itsmembers are paying their membership fees, but the association is not pursuing them it is not relianton these fees. The over-involvement of donors in the activities of NACOBTA may be anotherweakness. This creates the impression that NACOBTA is donor-driven and is pursuing an agendafor the donors rather than for the communities, leading to the disengagement of some importantstakeholders.

37

Another weakness of NACOBTA is its failure to develop an effective system for distributingcommunity funds to benefit the very poor as well as other people within communities. Most of thesecommunities have neither the experience nor the skills to work with large sums of money, and needassistance. The suggestion is not to tell communities what to do with their money, but to offer themvarious options of what can be done to benefit the community best. NACOBTA could perhapsemploy the services of a financial consultant to develop guidelines as some of the CBTEs generate asubstantial amount of money which could be used more efficiently to benefit even the very poor inthese communities

4.1.3 Constraining factors

The absence of a national tourism policy, together with a lack of government pro-activeness andcommitment to implement community-based tourism and conservancy policies, is a majorconstraint to incorporating PPT into mainstream tourism. This is illustrated by governmentdecisions in granting PTOs and concessions which greatly disadvantages the poor. Other concernsinclude:

• the slow processing of conservancy, PTO and concession applications;• uninformed MET personnel;• the lack of government involvement in border disputes between communities;• lack of incentives for private sector and community involvement in CBTE (farmers are offered

incentives);• lack of financial support for CBTEs;• the lack of staff in the Directorate of Tourism.

Another constraint to PPT development is the lack of funds and capital to develop the enterprises toan acceptable standard. Most communities cannot get financial assistance from financial institutionsbecause they do not have land tenure or other collateral.

The slow progress on the Communal Land Bill calling for communal land tenure to be given tocommunities, thus granting them rights to manage all natural resources including land in theircommunity, is an additional constraint.

4.1.4 Facilitating factors

Factors facilitating the progress of PPT include:• the commitment of development workers and NACOBTA;• the demand and enthusiasm of communities for initiating CBT activities;• the growing global CBT market;• donor assistance;• the existence of the Conservancy Act and CBT policy.

4.1.5 Main lessons

The main lessons learnt are:

38

The poor need to be organised into credible structures at both the local and national level toempower them and facilitate communication with others.

Working with the poor requires patience, time and effort, and progress is sometimes slow. PPTrequires skills to work with very different groups of people – the poor, the private sector and thedecision-makers

PPT requires multi-level strategies. At the macro-level, policies need to be in place for pro-poortourism to start; at the micro-level, the poor need to have access to skills, resources, markets andtraining to manage the enterprises effectively and maintain standards. The private sector must beinvolved as they have the skills, experience, established clientele/contacts, know the industry andhave the money to invest. Those involved in PPT must be organised and have a clear vision of pro-poor tourism and what is efficient. The poor must have access to natural resources that tourists arelooking for or need, such as land, wildlife, water etc.

Assessing PPT impacts on the poor can be difficult, but is important particularly when some are stillsceptical about PPT.

" The establishment of PPT in the mainstream industry requires a lot of investment to make theinitiatives viable. The operations of a supportive organisation like NACOBTA are also costly asthere is a lot that needs to be done. It is therefore important to ensure that the outputs of theseare in proportion with the inputs.

" A membership organisation of CBTEs promoting PPT is more effective and credible than anNGO or donor as the poor themselves are involved.

" An association like NACOBTA is more effective at developing and supporting PPT enterprisesand working with the private sector to integrate PPT into the mainstream industry thaninfluencing issues at the macro-level.

" Promoting PPT requires the development of partnerships between the private sector and the PPTinitiatives as well as partnerships with those with skills and funds.

" An association like NACOBTA needs to balance development skills and with business andtourism skills.

" An association such as NACOBTA needs to have a system of assessing and monitoring thebenefits of PPT in place.

" The gender aspect should be promoted in PPT activities" PPT has a positive impact on the living standards of the poor" PPT needs strong promotion" PPT should also be targeted at the local market" Political instability impacts negatively on PPT" Very successful PPT can benefit both the fairly poor and the very poor if efficient ways of

distributing the benefits are put in place" Promoting PPT needs to be supported by some kind of government policy which could be used

to solicit support or action from government by those promoting PPT such as NACOBTA." The development of PPT requires basic infrastructure in the communities such as telephones" The development and promotion of PPT should be spearheaded by indigenous people to foster

ownership of the idea within the government, communities and private sector and thus make itsustainable.

" It is important to ensure that in joint ventures with the private sector, the poor do not justbecome ‘spectators’ of the process and recipients of community funds. It must be involved inrunning the enterprises with the aim of acquiring skills and eventually assuming full ownershipand responsibility.

39

In summary, PPT requires a driving force through a form of institution that is multi-skilled, bend ondeveloping essential partnerships and skills while focussed on pro-poor tourism, particularly whenpoverty alleviation efforts are many and varied and some very closely linked to pro-poor tourisme.g. natural resource management.

4.2 Reflections on the pro-poor tourism research

The study shows that tourism can be adapted to meet pro-poor objectives by providing the poorwith access to natural resources, which can be used to establish tourism enterprises and integratedwithin the mainstream tourism industry. A substantial amount of financial and technical support isrequired however, to make these enterprises viable. It also requires a substantial effort to buildrelations with key players in the tourism sector to ensure that the industry understands the conceptof PPT, and is receptive to the idea of integrating these new entrants into the industry.

The study shows that income from PPT over the past five years amounts to over N$7 million. Thisincome has remained within the participating communities making them less vulnerable to poverty,and changing their status from being very poor to poor or better-off. The involvement of the poor inPPT ensures that all the income generated goes back into the community, unlike much incomegenerated from tourism by the state or the private sector..

PPT should equally target the poor and the poorest sectors of the community. In many instances,the poorest do not have the basic skills required for running an enterprise, but do have othertraditional skills, including performance, hunting, riding, craft-making, gemstone mining etc.,which can be harnessed for their benefit. Consequently, the poorest are able to benefit from PPTwhen community funds are well managed and when the distributive mechanisms focus on the needsof the very poor rather than those of the poor or better-off only.

PPT can be applied to any type of tourism including mass tourism. Mass tourism should be limitedto guided tours, craft selling and cultural performances in order to limit environmental damage andnegative impacts on the poor. Great care should be taken to ensure that negative impacts on thelivelihoods of the poor (e.g. cultural and sexual exploitation, environmental damage) are minimal,and the cost benefits of tourism in general should be taken into account at all times.

The inclusion of the private sector in PPT increases the commercial feasibility of CBTEs: the poorhave the resources and the private sector the skills and experience needed to ensure success of theinitiatives. These partnerships must provide a win-win situation for both sides to make itworthwhile. Benefits to the poor can be ensured through establishing community funds and bedlevies, which has worked with the Torra and Nyae Nyae conservancies in Namibia.

The integration of PPT into the mainstream industry requires a mutually respectful relationshipbetween those promoting PPT and those working in the private sector. People in the private sectorrespect partners who demonstrate an understanding of the way business operates. This means thatthose involved with the development and promotion of PPT need to acquire excellent businessskills in addition to their community development skills.

Practical action at the destination level cannot be effective unless some critical policies are in place.NACOBTA would not have been able to approach the private sector and enter into joint ventureswith poor communities, if tourism rights had not been granted to communal areas. The conservancypolicy gives communities rights over wildlife in their respective areas; hence the Nyae Nyae

40

conservancy was able to make an income of as much as N$125,000 from trophy hunting alone in1998. This is significant in a community where there was no cash income at all prior to this date.Policy development without sufficient action would not be of use to the poor either. Without poorpeople’s involvement they would have no knowledge of policies directly affecting them. In thecurrent political climate, the government has not begun to implement PPT policies and is unlikelyto do so in the near future because of a lack of capacity and poor coordination. An organisation likeNACOBTA is able to fill this gap by concentrating its activities at the destination level within thecurrent policy framework for the benefit of the poor. With some policies in place, efforts shouldperhaps be more focussed at the destination level rather than at the policy level. However, efforts atthe policy level are perhaps best shared with other stakeholders rather than being spearheaded by asingle organisation – donors, communities and other NGOs are working with NACOBTA at themacro-level.

PPT in Namibia is proving to be an effective poverty alleviation strategy judging by the income itcreates for the poor and its livelihood impacts. It also has a positive impact for the nation as awhole, in terms of economic growth, the equitable distribution of income, employment creation andpoverty alleviation. The good news is that income from PPT has grown at an average rate of 43%over the past three years. While PPT brings other livelihood benefits to the poor for now, manyregard income as the most important.

PPT requires that there is a product to offer tourists, but the poor do not always have something,such as landscape or local products. PPT should thus be regarded as a complementary strategy tocombating poverty. Like any other business it is also contingent on externalities such as politicalstability and the purchasing power of tourists.

The long-term impacts and sustainability of PPT cannot, as yet, be fully verified from this casestudy. Much still needs to be done to integrate PPT initiatives within the main tourism industry andmany CBTEs still need a lot of support and development. Nevertheless when looking at incomealone, the short-term impacts from these initiatives are evident. On the other hand, livelihoodimpacts are extremely difficult to measure and monitor as many people including the poor, donorsand NGOs do not pay much attention to them and they are best measured a long period afterimplementation (10+ years).

41

References

1. Accommodation Statistics, MET, 19942. Accommodation Statistics, MET, 19953. Accommodation Statistics, MET, 19964. Accommodation Statistics, MET, 19975. Accommodation Statistics, MET, 19986. Accommodation Statistics, MET, 19997. Activity Management Profile, by Nghishoongele Immanuel and Barnes Jon, 19978. Wabahe, M.S (2000) An Evaluation of SIDA support to Namibia Community Based Tourism Association

(NACOBTA9. Annual Visitor Statistics ,Policy Planning and Management Information Unit, MET,199610. Annual Visitor Statistics, Policy Planning and Management Information Unit, MET,199711. Annual Visitor Statistics, Policy Planning and Management Information Unit, MET,199812. Bi-Annual Report for the Namibian Community-Based Tourism Association, March- August 199713. Bi-Annual Report of the Namibia community Based Tourism Association, September 1997 - February

199814. Bi-Annual Report: The Namibia Community Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA), September 1999 -

February 200015. Bi-Annual Report: The Namibia Community Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA), by Louis Maxi

and Davidson Andee, 199916. Bi-Annual Report: The Namibia Community Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA), March to August

199817. Bi-Annual Report: The Namibia Community Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA), by Louis Maxi,

August 1998 to March 199918. Community-Based Natural Resource Management Programme, by Ministry of Environment and

Tourism19. Conservation of Biotic Diversity and Habitat Protection, by Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 199420. Consultant's Report on A Workshop on Developing M and E Systems for the INRM Programme, by

Baird James H, 199521. Country Review Report, by UNDP, 199922. Current and Potential Use values for Natural Resources in Some Namibian Communal Areas: A

Planning Tool, by Barnes J. I. , 199523. Desertification News, by Namibia's Programme to Combat Desertification, 199424. Ecotourism in Namibia: Considerations for Environmentally and Socially Responsible Travel, by Christ

Costas, 199525. Final Report: Namibia's National Programme to Combat Desertification26. First National Development Plan (NDP1) Volume I, by The National Planning Commission, 1995/1996

- 1999 -/200027. First National Development Plan (NDP1) Volume II, by National Planning Commission, 1995/1996 -

1999/200028. Flamingo, by Air Namibia, November 200029. Gender as a Factor in Community Based Natural Resource Management: A case Study of Nongozi,

Lianshulu, Lizauli and Sachona Villages in East Caprivi - Namibia, by Nabane Nontokozo, 199530. Incentives Affecting Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable use: the case of Land use options in

Namibia, by Ashley Caroline, 199631. Institutional Relationships, Capacity and Sustainability, by Jones Brian, T.B., 199632. Intangibles Matter: Non-financial Dividends of Community Based Natural Resource Management in

Namibia, by Ashley Caroline, 199833. Knowledge, Opinions and Attitudes Regarding Environmental Assessment in Namibia: Results of a

National Survey Conducted in 1997, by Tarr Peter, 200034. Land-use Planning: Towards Sustainable Development, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 199435. Life (Living in a Finite Environment) Programme, by World Wildlife Fund, 1995

42

36. Livelihood Strategies of Rural Households in Caprivi: Implications for Conservancies and NaturalResource Management, by Ashley Caroline and LaFranchi Christopher, 1997

37. Living in a Finite Environment (life) Programme ( Project No. 690-0251), by World Wildlife Fund,Rossing Foundation, World Learning and management Systems International, April 1999

38. Living in a Finite Environment (Life) Programme (Cooperative Agreement No. 690-A-00-99-00227-00),by World Wildlife Fund, Rossing Foundation, World Learning and Management Systems International,October 2000

39. Living in a Finite Environment (Life) Programme (Project No. 690-0251), by World Wildlife Fund,Rossing Foundation, World Learning and Management Systems International, April 1998

40. Living in a Finite Environment (Life) Programme (Project No. 690-0251), by World Wildlife Fund,Rossing Foundation, World Learning and Management System International, October 1999

41. Living in a Finite Environment (Life) Programme(Cooperative Agreement No. 690-A-00-99-00227-00)by World Wildlife Fund, Rossing Foundation, World Learning and Management Systems International,April 2000

42. Living in a Finite Environment (Life) Programme, by World Wildlife Fund, Rossing Foundation, WorldLearning and Management Systems International, 1997

43. Living in a Finite Environment (Life) Programme: Project No. 690-0251, by World Wildlife Fund,Rossing Foundation, World Learning and Management Systems International, 1996

44. Living in a Finite Environment (Life) Programme: Project No. 690-0251, by World Wildlife Fund,Rossing Foundation, World Learning and Management Systems International, 1997

45. Living in a Finite Environment (life) Programme: Report No. 690-0251, by World Wildlife Fund,Rossing Foundation, World Learning and Management System International, 1998

46. Mission Statement and Mandate of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, by Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism, 1994

47. NACOBTA Six-Monthly Report( March-Aug 2000)t and Annual Performance Indicators Sept 99- Aug2000, M. Louis and A . Davidson

48. NACOBTA Strategic Plan(1998-2001)Undated49. Namibia Country Position Paper, 199650. Namibia Food Security and Nutrition Assessment Report, by The Republic of Namibia, August 199551. Namibia Human Development Report, by UNDP with UN Country Team, 199852. Namibia Human Development Report, by UNDP with UNAIDS-sponsors, 199753. Namibia Human Development Report, by UNDP, 199654. Namibia: North-West Region Tourism Master Plan Volume II, by Urban Dynamics Africa, March 200055. Namibia: Raising to the Challenge of Poverty Reduction: Technical Paper for Preparation of Poverty

Reduction Strategy for Namibia, by The Republic of Namibia and the World Bank, 199756. Namibia-Community Based Tourism Association, by Louis Maxi, 199657. Parks and Resident Peoples Linking Namibian Protected Areas with local Communities, by Jones Brian

T. B., 1997.58. Parks and Resident Peoples Linking Namibian Protected Areas with local communities, by Jones Brian

T.B., 199759. Population Dynamics, the Environment, and Demand for Water and Energy in Namibia, by Ashley

Caroline, 199560. Population Growth and Renewable Resource Management . The Challenge of Sustaining People and the

Environment, by Ashley Caroline, 199461. Position Paper on The Outline of a National Land Policy, by NANGOF, December 199662. Profits, Equity, Growth and Sustainability. The Potential of Wildlife Enterprises in Caprivi and Other

Communal Areas of Namibia, by Ashley Caroline, Barnes Jon, Healy Tim, 199463. Promoting Community-Based Tourism Development, by Ashley Caroline and Garland Elizabeth, 199464. Promotion of Community Based Tourism, by Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 199565. Pro-poor Tourism: Putting Poverty At the Heart of the Tourism Agenda, Ashley, C. Boyd, H. Goodwin,

200066. Proposal to Amend and Extend the Living in a Finite Environment (Life) Programme, 1999-200267. Quarterly Report for the Namibia Community-Based Tourism Association (Combined), by Louis Maxi,

1996

43

68. Quarterly Report for the Namibia Community-Based Tourism Association, by Louis Maxi, 1 December -28 February 1997

69. Report of the Community- Based Tourism Enterprise Workshop, Costas Christ, World Learning, 199570. Research on Problems Encountered by Women in Cross Border Trade, by Development Support

Services71. Socio-Economic Status and the Use of Natural Resources in the Proposed Salambala Conservancy, by

Mosimane Alfons Wabahe, 199672. Submission of Final Technical Report for the Enterprise Development Unit of the IRDNC for the period

October 1995 to May 199773. The Environmental Investment Fund, by McGann Joseph A, 199974. The Status of Freshwater resources in Namibia, by Day J.A., 199775. The Value of Non-Agricultural and Land use in Some Namibian Communal Areas: A Data Base for

Planning, by Barnes J.I., 199576. Tourism Accommodation and Info Guide, 200077. Tourism and Poverty Development: Untapped Potential, DIFD, 199978. Tourism in the Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana and Oshikoto Regions79. Tourism, communities, and the potential impacts on local incomes and conservation, by Ashley

Caroline, 199580. Tourism, Communities, and the Potential Impacts on Local Incomes and Conservation, by Ashley

Caroline, 199581. Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Wildlife Viewing and Wildlife Conservation in Namibia, Barnes J.I.,

Schier C, van Rooy G, 199782. Towards the Establishment of the Environmental Investment Fund, by McGann Joseph A, 199983. Travel News : Namibia, Oct 199984. Travel News: Namibia, April 199985. Travel News: Namibia, August 200086. Travel News: Namibia, Feb/March 199987. Travel News: Namibia, May 200088. Travel News: Namibia, Nov/Dec 200089. Travel News: Namibia, Sept/Oct 200090. Using Resource Economics for Natural Resource Management: Namibia's experience, by Ashley

Caroline, Barnes Jon, Brown Chris and Jones Brian, 199791. Using Tourism as a Means to Sustain Community-Based Conservation: Experience from Namibia, by

Callihan David, 1999.92. Wildlife Conservation and Utilisation as Complements to Agriculture in Southern African Development,

by Barnes Jonathan I, 199893. Wildlife Management, Utilisation and Tourism in Communal Areas, by Ministry of Environment and

Tourism, 199594. Wildlife Tourism, Communities and Resource Economics: Experience in Namibia, by Ashley Caroline,

199695. Wildlife Use for Economic Gain the Potential for Wildlife to Contribute to Development in Namibia, by

Ashley Caroline and Barnes Jon, 1996

44

Appendix 1: Methodology

The methodology included in-depth interviews with: members of initiatives, NACOBTA staff,NGO staff, government officials, members of the private sector involved in tourism, donors,tourists, beneficiaries of initiatives; secondary research using various sources listed in the referencelist and visits to three of NACOBTA’s member initiatives.

The NACOBTA data are based on estimates. Data from LIFE documents do not focus on CBTEactivities alone but rather on all conservancy activities. Thus they do not reflect those NACOBTAmembers which are not yet conservancies. Data from interviews are also rough estimates except forthose of the Spitzkoppe CBTE.

45

Appendix 2 Actions to address barriers to participation of the poor in tourism

Issue Barrier? Means of overcoming it

Lack of human capital of the poor –e.g., skills

Yes Training in tourism, SME management, tour guide,language skills provided. On-site business advise offered

Lack of financial capital of the poor –e.g., micro credit, revolving loans

Yes Grants provided

Lack of social capital/organisationalstrength

No

Gender norms & constraints Yes Gender sensitive approaches included in training.Constitution requires gender representation inmanagement

Incompatibility with existinglivelihood strategies

Yes Avoid mass market tourism to avoid competition forresources such as water. Ensure that waste disposal issafe and done regularly. Provide tangible benefits tocommunity

Location Yes Develop area tourism plans to guide the poor. Lobby fordevelopment of infrastructure in tourist potential areas

Lack of land ownership/tenure Yes Lobby for legislation to give land tenure to the poor intheir communities. Offer training to communities onlease agreements, joint-ventures, levies, understandingcontracts and negotiation skills

Lack of product Yes Develop tourism development plans and investmentportfolios. Consult private sector.

Planning process favours others –lack of planning gain

Yes Lobby government to give concessions to the poorinstead of private sector, and power to communities overall natural resources in their area. Advocate forcommunities benefit funds with all applications forconservancies, PTOs and concessions

Regulations & red tape Yes Lobby for hunting quota systems to be the same for bothconservancies and freehold owners

Inadequate access to the tourismmarket

Yes Centralise the marketing and promotion of CBTEsthrough the association. Link up with private sector andgovernment tourism promotion bodies

Low capacity to meet touristexpectations

Yes Upgrade facilities to basic expected standard, train staffand encourage joint ventures with private sector

Lack of linkages between formal andinformal sectors/local suppliers

Yes Distribute information about the informal sector. Createlinks with the formal sector through the CBTEAssociation

Tourist market (segment)inappropriate

No

Lack of pro-active governmentsupport for involvement by the poor.

Yes Constant lobbying and involvement of the government inthe CBTE Association’s activities

Mistrust between the poor and theprivate sector

Yes Create awareness about mutual benefits and socialresponsibilities

Lack of banking facilities near thepoor

Yes Lobby financial institutions to offer mobile services forlong-term gain and as a contribution to development

Lack of benefits to the poor Yes Ensure that there are tangible benefit for the poor ineach product and that the communities understand short-term and long term gains

46

Lack of technical support Yes Provide on-site business advice and assistance withplans, budgets, proposals, monitoring and evaluationsystems, marketing tools etc.

Lack of CBT booking system Yes Set up a centralised booking system for all members.Lobby for infrastructure development e.g. telephone,roads. Ensure service provided is what is advertised

Lack of infrastructure Yes Lobby and work in partnership with key stakeholdersinvolved in infrastructure development

Lack of national tourism policy Yes Lobby for legislation of tourism policy so as to ensurethat the necessary infrastructure and support for tourismcan be budgeted for

Political unrest and war Yes Working in partnership on a regional strategy to re-introduce regional tours involving other countries to thecountry and the Caprivi and Kavango regions inparticular.

Lack of information Yes Provide information to the poor about the opportunitiesin tourism through conservancies, concessions, PTOsand land tenure

47

Appendix 3 Impacts on livelihoods of the poor

Benefits Losses, problems

• Skills, access toeducation

• Communities and members have acquiredskills such as book keeping, planning,management, leadership, negotiation,working with contracts.

• Working with, tourists, record keeping,natural resource management, gameguarding, tracking, budgeting, developingbusiness plans, running CBTEs,decorating CBTEs, dealing withbookings.,

• 415 trained under NACOBTA

• Tied up with the activities of theCBTE

• Use free time to study

• Have to leave family behindwhen attending training in otherplaces

• Natural resources(access to,use/productivity)

• 17 Communities now registered asconservancies to access rights overwildlife

• Many communities have PTO s and canexploit natural resources such asSpitzkoppe

• Wildlife donated and introduced intocommunities to boost tourism by MET andprivate sector—50 hartebeest, 53 oryx, 89springbok, 8 zebra, 33 blue wilde beest, 25impala worth N$400 000 donated to NyaeNyae and Salambala in 1999

• Trophy hunting used to bring income

• Trophy hunting provides meat tocommunity

• Children and adults pleased to see wildlife again

• Wildlife can destroy crops andproperty

• Some communities forced out ofnew conservancy areas

• Lack of land tenure

• No right over other resourcessuch as water, plants andlandscape

• Competition for resources suchas water and land

• Take farming land away frompeople

• Conflicts arise over boundaries

• Communityorganisation,cohesion, pride

• All conservancies now organised intocommittees which makes communicationand decision making participatory

• Power no longer centralised in traditionalauthorities and the state

• Women now part of decision making—25%

• The rich and the poor now have power inthe community

• Communities now have power to negotiatewith outsiders through the communitycommittees

• People have pride in their CBTE success

• some people do not understandthat even if they signeddocuments on behalf of thecommunity it does not give themthe right to claim communityproperty for themselves

• conflicts arise due to powerstruggle

48

• Infrastructure:

• Water

• roads, transport

• telephone,communication

• other

• Roads to CBTEs are better maintainedthan before

• Some CBTEs now have access to phones

• Bore holes give access to water for thecommunity too

• Locals can have access to transport by liftsfrom visitors

• Some CBTEs have transport which canassist communities

• School built using CBTE communityfunds

• Lodges build to increase tourists

• Toilets and showers introduced intocommunity

• Solar Electricity introduced in CBTEs

• Too much traffic disturb peopleand animals

• Some roads interfere withpeople’s properties

• Increased noise

• Increased traffic

• Banks are too far from CBTEs

• Post Offices too far

• Ablution systems may pollutedrinking water

• Farm lines not efficient

• Solar power cannot operatefreezers, faxes, other gadgetsrequired by tourists

• Access to HealthCare

• members can afford clinic fees

• First Aid facilities available at CBTEseven for communities

• Some CBTEs pay for medical costs ofworkers

• Access to telephone makes access tomedical help e.g. ambulance quickerduring accidents

• Some CBTE built clinics in community

• risk of incapacitation due to caraccidents

♦ Access toinformation

• Members seek out information about thehistory of Katutura and Namibia

• Visitors get access to information theynormally do not get which improves theperception of the poor by the tourists

• Interaction with tourists increasesinformation from outside

• Communities have access to informationthrough CBTE newsletter andNGO/NACOBTA staff

• Communities may be introducedto information that conflict withtheir beliefs

• Information from outside mayinfluence community membersnegatively e.g. unhealthy diet,rude music etc.

• Funds for thecommunity

• Community benefit indirectly fromcommunity funds contributed by CBTEs

• Funds raised through levies, leases, feesetc.

• Community spend funds on what theyregard as their needs collectively.Spitzkoppe is building a toilet for thechurch hall and contributing to funeralexpenses

• Communities do not have rightsover all resources to startcharging others

• No efficient system ofdistributing and usingcommunity funds within thecommunity

49

• Other livelihoodactivities: farming,employment,migration etc

• Regular income for those employed

• Employment created locally, particularlyrural areas

• Income even during drought for farmingcommunities

• Families united as work is in community

• Access to cash

• Offers employment to who are semi-skilled— school leavers

• People near their farms and can do both—6/19 members of Spitzkoppe CBTE aresubsistence farmers

• Members not with theirimmediate family(Penduka, Faceto Face)

• Members are far from theirrelatives(Penduka, Face to Face)

• War in Caprivi has set CBTEsand communities back in manyways

• Over-reliance on overseastourists

• Members can no longer assistwith farming in the village

• Too much pressure onindividuals to farm and runCBTE s

• Markets, marketopportunities

• CBTE is becoming increasingly popularwith tourists i.e. market expanding—58900 tourists visited NACOBTA in 2000

• Creating a product in the market that wasnot there before

• Taking a share of the existing touristmarket

• Private sector getting involved in CBTE insupport or as partners

• The poor are seizing market opportunitiespreviously only accessible to the poor

• Market has potential to grow for CBTE

• Increase in market puttingpressure on resources

• The poor with poor negotiationsskills loose out on deals with theprivate sector

• Mass market cab over-stretchcommunities in energy andresources

• Policyenvironment

• The MET CBT and Conservancy policieshave made communities seize the chance

• Government’s goal to alleviate povertyand bring equity has led to donorsassisting NACOBTA and CBTEs

• The Namibian constitution calls forsustainable resources management. Thishas led to the development of CBTEs andConservancies as a means of CBNRM

• Policy that Municipalities will beresponsible for training and managing tourguides have led to FACE to FACE gettingtraining and possible support

• Influence overpolicy makers

• Many CBTEs now have a voice at policyand planning level in the form ofNACOBTA

• Communities who were applied forconservancies demanded that MET not putconcessions for their areas on tender and

50

this was obliged

• The MET has put all PTO applications onhold for now on request from CBTEs andCBRNM NGOs

• Jobs • Created 163 fulltime jobs

• CBTE employ over 800 casual labourersas cultural performers, builders, cleaners,hunting assistants & craft makers

• Create jobs for the poor with skills asguides drivers, trackers

• Opportunities forinformal sector &small businesses

• Promote the informal sector and openopportunities for them by taking tourists tothe informal sector(Face to Face)

• Selling of rafts produced an income ofN$195 917.00 in 1999

• Creates a market for small scale mining

• Use of grass and reeds use for building byCBTE which boost these sectors

• Face to Face takes clients to the informalsector market to try Namibian food

• Casual labouropportunities

• CBTE s use casual labour during busyperiods and for hunting and building

• Penduka relies heavily on casuallabour(more than 600)

• Household income • Increases household incomes for CBTEmembers, informal sector, other CBTEs,SMEs and casual workers directly orindirectly

• Regular household income for themembers

• Food security raised

• Many CBTE communities changed fromvery poor to poor or better off categories

• Household income from CBTEs in 2000was N$1,94 million

• People may become dependenton income

• May neglect other incomesources

• Local culture • Local culture and history is preserved bythe young CBTE members

• Local culture and history promoted

• Local culture and history instil pride incommunity and CBTE members

• Positive perception of the local culture andhistory developed in tourists

• Privacy of people could beinvaded

• Potential to exploit people bytourist e.g. photography etc.

• Wrong impression or perceptionof Namibians may be taken bytourists

51

• Culture and history re-introduced

• Overallvulnerability ofhouseholds

• Decreased as there is regular income andsome members move from being very poorto poor or poor to being better off

• Vulnerability to changes in thetourism market

• RuralCommunities

• Become economic entities

• Rural skills and knowledge are finding usein CBTE

• No longer as marginalised

• Speeding the Development process

• Solving their own problems and needs

52

Appendix 4 Financial data

A. Financial benefits, community income and wage income for some CBTEs in1999

CBTE Total financialbenefit

(N$)

Total income earnedby conservancies

(communities)

Total household/wage income

Populationsize

Khoadi//hoas 45000 45000 0 2823

Kwandu 5760 0 5760 5982

Mashi 3616 0 3616

Mayuni 132631 23019 9612 1462

Nyae Nyae 518687 122000 45587 2631

Salambala 263149 168986 31663 7066

Torra 507761 276614 207335 1426

West Caprivi 38435 17243 21192

Wuparo 3097 0 3097 4278

Caprivi Arts and Crafts 65562

Lizauli Traditional Village 58402

Caprivi Crafts 2 333

CBTEs not inConservancies

580 000 252540 327 600

Total 2 224 573 905 402 655 462

Source: Adapted from: LIFE Report April –September 99/2000

53

B. CBTE total financial benefits and community income over four years

1997 1998 1999 2000

TFB TCI TFB TCI TFB TCI TFB TCI

Khoadi//hoas 45 000 45 000 97 000 90 000

Kwandu 5 760 0 800 0

Mashi 3616 21 500

Mayuni 132 631 23 019 51 000 16 000

Nyae Nyae 182 000 182 000 227 835 146 000 518 687 122 000 983 200 129 000

Purros 100 440 0

Salambala 10 378 10 378 263 149 168 986 114 660 36 411

Torra 329 949 170 000 507 761 276 614 411 000 188 000

West Caprivi 9760 9760 24 305 14 305 38 435 17 243 25 735 3685

Wuparo 3 097 3 097 2 200 0

Caprivi Arts &crafts

128 850 72 847 65 562

LizauliTraditionalVillage

63583 64 891 58 402

Caprivi crafts 10 951 31 071 2 333

Other CBTEs 580 140

Total 668350 191 760 1 151 776 340 683 2 439 823 655 959 1 807 535 463 096

Source: Adapted from: LIFE Report April –September 99/2000TFB= Total Financial Benefit , TCI=Total Community Income i.e. collective incomeTFB = TCI plus total household income

C. Income from CBTEs over six years

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 6 year total

Household/wageincome

160000 568850 668350 559309 1 249 549 1 944 251 5 150 309

ConservancyCommitteeincome

191760 592 467 652 862 484 886 1 921 975

Total N$ 160 000 568850 860 110 1 151 776 1 902 411 2 429 137 7 072 284

Source: Life Report April-Sept 2000

Income from CBTEs not in conservancies included in household/wage income